Japan Changes History Again In New Middle School Textbooks

Japan Changes History Again In New Middle School Textbooks

Japan Changes History Again In New Middle School Textbooks

Japan’s Ministry of Culture recently announced its new selection of textbooks for Japanese middle schools. The textbooks make bold geographical claims, such as the Diaoyu (aka Senkaku) and Dokdo (aka Takeshima) islands fundamentally belonging to Japan. In addition to these claims, which have continuously strained the country’s relations with China and Korea respectively, the textbooks have also changed the wording in descriptions of the Nanjing Massacre, shifting blame away from Japan. Chinese netizens were not surprised, and many again suggest boycotting Japanese goods.

Source: Sina

READ  Earth 2.0 Found 1400 Light Years Away, Netizens React
  • Lord_Helmet

    Duke it out or just shut the F up already, over it.

  • Dannisi

    Isn’t that an ‘internal affair’ for Japan?

    • Ale Jandro

      good comment!
      The new is quite short though… who knows what’s the intention of the poster…

    • mr.wiener

      Relations have been so thorny this was bound to have repocussions. Even though this is a domestic act fuel by domestic politics they knew there would be international consequences.

    • 42

      Is boycotting japanese goods by China an internal affair? I don’t think soooooooooo…..

    • Alex Dương

      If this were just about Japanese history that had nothing to do with China, sure. Kinda hard to make that argument credibly when this involves Sino-Japanese history.

  • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

    I think the situation is like being on thin ice. Now most countries would have the sense to get off the ice, but what does Japan do?

    Jump up and down like a kid having a tantrum.

    • Zen my Ass

      I might be wrong, but it was China that first woke up after more than a century and claimed sovereignty over those islands… What is Japan supposed to do, bend down and smile?

      • Alex Dương

        It’s more than the disputed islands, though.

      • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

        It’s supposed to face it head on in the political arena, not edit your own history so future generations will believe some skewed version of the truth, thus souring relations even worse.

        • Zen my Ass

          Like China to say one? Claiming sovereignty everywhere they stick their nose in is messing up with history, isn’t it? Look at what they’re doing in the Philippines: who’s right, who’s wrong?

          • Alex Dương

            Only China and Vietnam have been in the South China Sea dispute since the beginning. Back then, France claimed the islands on behalf of Vietnam. Why didn’t the U.S. care (the Philippines) or the U.K. (Malaysia + Brunei)?

          • Insomnicide

            America actually supported China’s claim to the South China Sea islands during the Chiang Kai-shek years. They quickly changed their stance after China went communist…

          • Zen my Ass

            Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan, things have changed a bit since those times…

          • Alex Dương

            Just goes to show that political considerations trump “common sense.”

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            I’m kinda hung up on ‘Like China to say one’. Like seriously. What does that mean?

          • Zen my Ass

            Chinese are masters at editing their own history, that’s what I mean.

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            Well I guess they have more in common with Japan than they think. But the big difference is that one of them is better equipped than the other if it comes to blows. When faced with someone that could squash you, it may not be best to mimic them. It won’t flatter them.

          • Zen my Ass

            That’s my initial point… what are you supposed to do, bend down and smile? I don’t think so, and I’m not so sure about the squashing power of one of the two players…

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            Well one has nukes, and one has been on the receiving end of nukes. Make of that what you will.

  • 42

    Germany the main culprit of the second world war have been well accepted and well respected by other European countries after the WAR. Germany actually being the most prospereous and succesful country in Europe as of today. The main reason for this acceptance is that Germany did not change or avoid the facts of their historical background in regard to WWII and not ignored their responsibilty towards it.

    The same reason why Japan, eventhough have or had an very well economy are still resented by many asian countries even till this day, is because they as a country and their generations after, have not showed remorse for their ancestral atrocities.

    • Dannisi

      And also, the best way to unite a group of people is to give them a common enemy.

      • 42

        People do not need enemies, people just want respect.

        • Dannisi

          Both governments need their people thinking about other things than how they ate being fucked by their own government.

          • helsic

            man, you’re so right. It’s like a distraction for the people.

    • Cameron

      Germany was held to account. Japan was not. If you give a convicted rapist the keys to the cell, he will walk out. Do you blame the rapist or the person who handed him the keys?

      • Germandude

        That’s right. While the atrocities the Nazis caused were well-displayed and the people held accountable, this has not been the case with Japan.
        When Japan surrendered, the eyes of the Allies were already on a potential conflict with Russia (and at that time absolutely imminent) and so, the Japanese atrocities were not a priority anymore. During the cold war, Japan quickly became a strategic allied and so, a blind eye on certain things was kept.

      • Xia

        It would be different, if KMT accepted the invitation from the Americans to become one of the occupation powers in Japan. But instead they declined, because they needed their forces to fight the communists. So who is really to blame?

      • Vance

        Both countries were totally destroyed as a result of the wars that they started for imperialistic purposes. In that way, they paid their penitence for causing all that trouble. It seems that while Germany accepted that and went to rebuilding, Japan also rebuilt to become a real economic power, but I get the feeling they believe themselves victims of the war damage rather than viewing it as penitence for warring with others and moving on.

        • Irvin

          We are all victims of war.

          • Vance

            Yes. Better to not have any. Sometimes that is impossible though.

    • Xia

      In Europe, people tend to confront issues openly and are ready to forgive. They look at who exactly is guilty and don’t blame the descendants. People want to settle things, and when it is done, the chapter is closed, they move on.

      But the Asian cultures are based on face. They regard things in terms of honor and shame. The Japanese will see it as a shame on their nation and an insult on their ancestors, if they were to openly criticize their own WWII history. And the Chinese regard the shame of imperial Japanese soldiers being passed down to their descendants and want to see Japan humiliated in retribution. In both countries, inconvenient things will just be pushed into the corner till they become too disturbing to ignore and then resurface from time to time.

      I neither expect Japan to show true remorse, nor China ready to forgive. If the issue were to be resolved one day, it will be because everyone has gone tired of the same news stories popping up every year and got some better things to do.

  • Cameron

    If Japan cannot communicate the facts of this period of the war to its youth with some semblance of truth it would be better to leave it out entirely. There is no rule that a country must address every hideous chapter of its history within its national curriculum. But raising the relevant chapter only to whitewash it makes one look fundamentally dishonest and immoral. Sort it out Japan.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      I lived in Japan for 1,5 year. Most people I met know exactly what happened and feel sorry and ashamed for the atrocities commited. It is just the Japanese government that is keeping its head in the sand.

      • Xia

        That’s why whitewashing the education is so problematic. Given a few more years, the younger generations will believe the whitewashed version. If you want a real life example, just look at China.

        • hiidan

          China is an example of how that doesn’t work, actually. Ask a Chinese what he thinks about Mao, for example.

          • Xia

            You will be shocked to hear how many Chinese still cherish Mao as their “great leader”.

          • hiidan

            Very few, actually. Maybe there are many alive in the oldest sector of the population, but I don’t a single young Chinese who likes Mao (and I know more than 20).
            Everytime we discuss about it, it’s them who say how bad Mao was, while I say Mao maybe was a necessary evil.

          • Xia

            There are already Japanese who believe Nanjing Massacre was a hoax and that Japan was forced to enter the war rather than being the aggressor. The agenda of the LDP to “restore national glory” has some effect at the very least.

    • slob

      You do realize that this story is fabricated propagandist bullshit right? Japan DOES tell about Nanjing in their history books. Almost every school in Japan covers it and blames themselves for what happened because they don’t want history to repeat and they see the actions of their ancestors as shameful. There was a thread on Reddit a couple of days ago which had tons of links showing formal apologies by the Japanese govt. to China. I also read that the last 4 prime ministers before Abe didn’t visit the memorial shrine out of respect for China and to not cause further problems between the two countries. So yes, they do recognise what happened and yes, it IS taught to their children in the schools. If you’re getting your information from some bs Chinese website which is propogandist bs, then I suggest you get a VPN and check out some real sources.
      Also, my brother spent almost 9 years in Japan and I asked him about this stuff. He told me every school he went to covered all of the events of Nanjing with detail, of course leaving out gruesome details but they’re not denying what happened. Some schools are still changing the textbooks but most of the schools do not. There was a huge problem a few years back where they wanted to censor a lot of the information about it and most of the teachers disagreed with it saying it should be taught. Honor is a huge part of Japanese culture and something as disgraceful and dishonorable like what happened in Nanjing could not morally be forgotten by Japanese standards.
      So, where’s the huge uproar of Japanese against Chinese when they hate their country as a national trend? Do you see Japanese starting massive riots over Chinese people teaching 5 year olds to hate Japanese and calling them ghosts? No. Because in Japan, they have a higher moral standard than that.

      • Alex Dương

        You do realize that this story is fabricated propagandist bullshit right? Japan DOES tell about Nanjing in their history books. Almost every school in Japan covers it and blames themselves for what happened because they don’t want history to repeat and they see the actions of their ancestors as shameful.

        This doesn’t contradict the story. You said “almost every school.” Only a minority of schools adopted the Tsukurukai books from 10 years ago that started this shitstorm.

        I also read that the last 4 prime ministers before Abe didn’t visit the memorial shrine out of respect for China and to not cause further problems between the two countries.

        FYI, the last five PMs before Abe each lasted about a year.

      • Bing

        Naive.
        Chinese people need an enemy. Lets see who can be this enemy.
        US? Neah they are too stronk. Besides I have my wife and son living there.
        Russia? Neah they are our alliance.
        North Korean? Neah they are our little communist friend
        South Korean? Neah they are also wwii victim, like us. And we just signed FTA.
        SE Asian country? Too weak. Probably Vietnam, but hell another communist fella.
        Mongolia? You series? They have the second strongest navy.
        Taiwan? They are our province you ignorant fag.
        So which country should we blame—- a country has history connection with us,will not bite us back, will not shoot.missles to us, and still be polite?
        You tell me man.

        • KamikaziPilot

          Actually as much as Chinese “hate” japan and japanese people, I think they hate themselves even more, and that’s really saying something.

      • Scilyvié

        Apologies mean nothing, if there are constant statements/remarks/actions made by politicians of prominence that undermines the said apologies(which were already worded ambiguously or in a way that minimized Imperial Japan’s responsibilities and liabilities in the first place).
        If Japan wants to make the protests of its neighbouring countries implausible, it needs to make a clear, equivocal statement defining the past atrocities committed by Imperial Japan during WWII. They should then follow Germany’s example and illegalize the denial or downplay of said definition, and then definitively make it obvious that any persons who continue to downplay or reject the definition is of the minority(hold little power) and frowned upon by the popular government and the general population.
        Also most Chinese people don’t teach their kids to hate Japanese people, in fact, many Chinese people admire many characteristics of the Japanese culture and lament on the lost of their own culture/values. Any parent who teaches their kids to hate Japan, is mostly likely uneducated, or personally knew a loved one who had experienced through, or died during the Japanese occupation. And the fact that Japan keeps bringing up sore spots isn’t helping to their sentiments.
        And I don’t know where you get that hating Japan is a national trend, because it is not(if anything, hating their own government is the trend). The only times those sentiments are strong is when some prominent Japanese politician has yet again made an insensitive comment or done something inappropriate, with regards to WWII.

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          What if I told you that in some universities where I guest-lectured, Chinese students are taught/sing anti-Japan songs in class regularly. Teachers proudly have “Dogs and Japanese people, stay away” stickers on their cars…

          • Scilyvié

            Then that clearly is unacceptable. But may I ask which city/province it’s in. Because in a school in Beijing which I attended(for a short while), such behavior was extremely unacceptable, and teachers could face being sacked for such opinions and racism. The students at the school I attended were told that there is a difference between common Japanese people and those who were involved in the war-crimes. And in fact they acknowledged many of the Japanese people who stayed behind to help the people they once hurt. I remember very clearly that there was a kid who was going off about the ‘Japanese devils’ and the teacher then explained that one should not judge an entire nation based on the actions of those during war. After the teacher’s speech the whole class clapped their hand. But mind you, this was primary schools,and middle schools that I’m talking about.
            I know that in Nanjing the anti-Japanese sentiment is extremely strong simply because that was where the massacre happened. But still, I am shocked that those teachers have not been sacked, because as I am aware of (from my experience) anti-Japanese sentiments are mainly passed on by the parents to the kids, not so much by the teachers.

  • Cameron

    One of the key differences between the post war behaviours of Germany and Japa that many people (including Chinese) fail to grasp is that Germany had no choice but to grovel before the international community – and was made to do so.

    Japan, however, despite being utterly defeated was still allowed to call the shots to some extent. Primarily because the US wanted a strong ally in SE Asia. Also, there is strong evidence that war crime trials of top military officias were limited by the US in exchange for the findings of Japan’s reprehensible and gruesome wartime human experimentation and medical research.

    In short, Japan today acts like a victim, or at best equally victim and aggressor, because it was allowed and I dare say encouraged into adopting this position by the self-interested allies (particularly the US) ridiculously lenient post war treatment, which enabled it to rebuild at an incredible speed without a serious reckoning of its hideous wartime behaviour.

    • guest

      Japan got nuked, twice, and there were indications that the Americans had no idea HOW destructive the atomic bombs actually were till afterwards – so that played a part in the kids gloves treatment of Japan afterwards.

      The after effects also lasted decades. I thought the bombs was a justified way to end the war back when I thought that people would just be gone, in a flash – the way these bombs are depicted in Ray Bradbury stories (e.g “There Will Come Soft Rain” – there were no corpses – the bomb just burnt everything up in an instance), Then I saw pictures of the /survivors/ – the ones who lived through the immediate aftermath at least: burn injuries, melted features. I don’t think it’s justified anymore.

      The Japanese invasion was the reason why my Chinese grandmother was very afraid when 9/11 happened, she ask if there war was coming to North America – all these years later she was afraid – I remember feeling angry for her. But now, I still think the atomic bombs were Too Far – especially since the armies who did the atrocities were aboard – so the victims were civilians.

      • mr.wiener

        It is an unpopular opinion, but it probably saved a lot of lives in the long run, plus half of Japan being occupied by the Russians and suffering the fate of Korea or Vietnam.
        As to the horrible suffering…it was just that, but not many die well in war.

      • Teacher in China

        They were definitely too far. The Japanese were already on the brink of surrendering. The Allied forces were being unreasonable in negotiations. The bombs weren’t necessary at all.

        • Vance

          Don’t forget, we have the benefit of hindsight now, but the experience of that time was that the Japanese were fighting to the death in every case. They had every reason to believe it would especially be true for the homeland. And the alternative would have been continued firebombing. More died in just as horrible a way in the firebombings that had already taken place. Remember, the Allies were actually fighting a god. The Emperor was believed to be divine. To fight a god, they needed to show god-like power. True, if the Japanese would have surrendered soon without the bombs being dropped, then many lives would have been saved. But we will never know how much conventional warfare they would have withstood before surrendering. If they held out long at all, millions more would have died than did. Burn injuries suffered from firebombing were no more pleasant than burn injuries suffered by those on the outer parts of the blast zones.

          • gregblandino

            There’s been some interesting research using Russian and Japanese language sources that strongly suggest the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had more of an affect than the atomic bombing on Japan’s decision to surrender. The atomic bombings all ready fit into an all ready existing continuum of Allied strategic bombing. The paradigm shift comes from the entrance of the USSR.

            David Glantz has an interesting paper on the Manchurian offensive.

            http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

            The defeat and surrender of 1 million strong Japanese army and the prospects of Soviets at the Korea Strait and invading Hokkaido was more of a shock than the atomic bombings.

            To be honest, the American insistence on “unconditional surrender” (especially considering the main sticking point, the status of the Emperor, was eventually resolved by letting the Japanese Emperor stay in nominal power) led to the atomic bombing. The two bombings could have been rendered unnecessary if the American negotiating position would have been more flexible. It’d been one thing if we hanged Hirohito and abolished the Imperial family, and who knows what affect that’d have on current right wing Japanese politics.
            IMHO, the far more pernicious and widespread historical myth is the whitewashing of the Emperor’s role in WWII, not fringe denialists of the Nanking Massacre. Tojo as the fall guy and Hirohito as the garden keeping pacifist is ridiculous.

            “Racing the Enemy” by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has a pretty good breakdown of the reasonings behind the Japanese surrender in WWII. I’ve heard The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb byGar Alperovitz is good, but I’ve only read articles on it, not the book itself.

  • Gerhana

    To Japan history is like fashion, its a form of ugliness so intolerable that they have to alter it every six months

    • Ryan

      I’m so perplexed by all this…
      China has a FAR WORSE record when it comes to “being honest about history” than Japan does.
      A million times worse. A BILLION times worse.
      In fact, I’d say China is so much worse than Japan when it comes to “owning ones history” that I’d say it’s a number so high that man kind is unable to fathom it.
      At least Japan doesn’t flat out “censor” things, and make people “disappear” when they discuss it.

      • Alex Dương

        At least Japan doesn’t flat out “censor” things, and make people “disappear” when they discuss it.

        This reminds me of Republican politicians who say stuff like “hey, at least in the U.S., gays aren’t stoned to death like they are in Iran. So what if they can’t marry? Boo hoo!”

        • RagnarDanneskjold

          Gays can’t marry because they can’t make a baby in an anus.

          • Alex Dương

            My point is that it’s really embarrassing for people to say that a free, democratic country should get a pass on certain behaviors because unfree, undemocratic countries do the same.

          • Dolph Grunt

            Of all the comments on this topic, this one summarizes it the way I feel. I think it’s ignorant how China has altered their history, but in no way do I give Japan a free pass for doing the same.

          • Alex Dương

            I agree with how you read some of Ryan’s comments. I also agree with you in looking at things more straightforwardly: “X shouldn’t do it; Y shouldn’t do it.”

          • Scilyvié

            Then going by your logic, people who are infertile, or never plan on having children shouldn’t be able to marry either.

        • Ryan

          You’ve become a flat out apologist to a government that will go down in history (in China and internationally) as being no better than the Nazi’s in the mid 1930’s. Really think about it. What will future generations think/say about the ccp?
          I know you’re angle is “people have become too hard on the Chinese PEOPLE”, and I get that… but you’ve allowed it to turn you into an apologist for a despicable organization.
          And this is where it always begins for people like you. It always STARTS with something noble. But you’ve allowed it to turn you into an apologist for something that will go down in history as flat out EVIL!!!
          You should be ASHAMED.

          • Alex Dương

            I have no reason to be ashamed. I’m well aware that Chinese claims to its border regions stem from historical imperialism. Unlike you, I won’t make arguments like “gays are treated well in the U.S. because they aren’t stoned to death like they are in Iran.” It’s absurd to compare the U.S. with Iran, and it’s absurd to give Japan a pass because China behaves poorly.

          • 接輿

            Exactly, and that’s the same line of reasoning that most Chinese will employ in defense of of their government’s activities in Tibet or Xinjiang.

            “Look at what your United States did to 美国印第安人 …”

            Yes, look at what they did, and you’re doing the same horrible shit. Shouldn’t we be learning from those mistakes rather than emulating them?

            Japan shouldn’t be absolved for trying to induce mass, institutionalized amnesia just because revisionist hillbillies in the American South want their children to believe that the “Great Unpleasantness” was about state’s rights, or because the CPC elite want their flock to believe that Mao sociopathic megalomania was was “50% wrong and 50% right.”

          • Alex Dương

            As I pointed out elsewhere, it is not surprising that you find non-Chinese people commenting here using the same argument: “well, China does it too, so it’s OK for Japan to do it.”

      • Dolph Grunt

        “At least Japan doesn’t flat out “censor” things, and make people “disappear” when they discuss it.”

        They have within the last century. That’s not a part of their education either.

  • WE KNOW ITS YOU PENNY ZHAI

  • Ryan

    I don’t understand…
    Hasn’t the Chinese government flat out altered history about NUMEROUS things? And then censored them from the internet/media?
    Why are Chinese citizens mad about something THEIR OWN country does FAR MORE OFTEN than Japan?

    • Ryan

      I would also like to point out that I tried posting this exact message a while ago as an anonymous guest. Chinasmack censored it.
      I had to use a Disqus account to post without being censored by Chinasmack.
      I guess that’s the new reality around here.

      • Alex Dương

        I’d like to respond by pointing out that guest comments have always been subject to approval before they appear. In this case, I did not find any record of a deleted message that said “I don’t understand…” in the last nine hours.

        Edit

        Oh, I didn’t find it because it was never deleted.

    • helsic

      I totally agree with you! I’m wondering the same too. You can check wikipedia and read really crazy facts about Mao but the average Chinese person would deny that Mao did horrible stuff…so I really can’t understand Chinese people.

      • Ryan

        Haha. Mao was “70% good, 30% bad”. Yeah, I’m sure those are accurate numbers.
        The way I see it… Japans government lies about ONE terrible thing in their past. While the Chinese government lies about an INDESCRIBABLE amount of terrible things in their past.
        But outrage is only shown to Japan.

        I guess I’m just another that “doesn’t understand Chinese culture”.

        • helsic

          I don’t know why it’s so hard to admit bad stuff in your own country’s history. I’m from Colombia and we have a horrible history of drug lords and violence with the guerrillas, and if you ask a Colombian I’m sure they would all talk about how bad those times were in the 80’s and how the struggle continues! I don’t know why is so hard for Japanese and Chinese people to just recognize their ancestors did wrong and move on!

          • Xia

            It’s the Asian mindset, culture of face saving.

      • Cameron

        This article is about Japan. Every Chinese person knows China has done some awful things the past four millennia or so, as has every nation. They also know the CCP lies and covers up. But this isn’t about that. This is about the Japanese refusal to come to terms with its own behavior toward its Asian neighbors during WW2.

        • Ryan

          If this site was called “Japan Smack” and they criticized Japan, we wouldn’t be complaining.
          But an article on CHINAsmack that shows Chinese people hypocritically angry at Japans government for something the Chinese government is FAR MORE guilty of… well… the hypocrisy simply needed to pointed out.

          • helsic

            yeah, it’s a double standard. I’m not defending Japanese attitude towards their past either.

          • Scilyvié

            WOW. You are clearly biased. Every country in the world is EQUALLY guilty of said offenses simply because our histories were and still is being written by the winners.

            What were you expecting? This site’s purpose is to show the general comments/sentiments of Chinese Netizens from certain sites on a variety of popular/trending issues/stories on the net in China. So yes, this article would be appropriate for this site, because it is portraying a Chinese sentiment to an issue(albeit the writer didn’t include any translated comments from Chinese netizens). There is also a site called Japancrush which shows the Japanese netizen’s comments/sentiments.
            Let me also tell you, the very action of a government covering up or downplaying its own actions or responsibilities is despicable, and should always be criticized. You really think the Chinese don’t criticize and condemn their own government for certain atrocities in the past? Well learn something because they do, and many are still fighting to have the PRC admit to it.
            Another thing you conveniently did not mention is that what the Japanese government is trying to cover is something that involves the Chinese (and Koreans), which in turn will cause a negative reaction from them. Of course they’re going to criticize and protest, and they have have every right to do so, simply because it involves them.
            Now before you go on further to say, well Mao and the PRC did worse. No. What each side is trying to cover were two separate tragedies that should not be used to downplay the horror of each other. Not to mention that there is also a HUGE difference between the atrocities committed: 1.) trying to improve one’s nation at the expense of ANOTHER nation. 2.) trying to improve one’s nation at the expense of ITSELF. Of which Japan was guilty of the former and Mao and PRC the latter.
            Your argument of hypocrisy should only be used to point out the stupidity of a Chinese idiot who condemns the Japanese government but claims their government was perfect.

    • Alex Dương

      The same reason you think Chinese claims to Tibet are illegitimate but you won’t leave Canada.

    • Dolph Grunt

      You don’t think the average citizen of China should be allowed to feel angry about Japan altering history? Regardless of what the Chinese government does with their history, I don’t feel it’s fair to fault the Chinese with being upset about this.

      Don’t get me wrong, Chinese history has been altered and censored, as you’ve pointed out, but why shouldn’t people be upset about Japan doing the same.

      I saw you post a comment elsewhere to the effect that “Japan gets grilled but China gets a free pass.” It sounds a little like the classic “blame America” tactic that people use when arguing about China. “Well, China does it, so why can’t Japan?”

      I’m sure that’s not what you meant. I’m really not trying to put words in your mouth. It’s just the way you’ve presented this argument leaves a lot of room for debate.

      I just try to look at it simply. Japan shouldn’t do it. China shouldn’t do it.

      • Ryan

        If I were posting on Japansmack and the article was about Japan altering its history, I would at that point criticize the Japanese government.
        But this article is on CHINAsmack and highlights Chinese reactions to the news.
        As a site where we discuss CHINA, I’m pointing out the Chinese hypocrisy in the matter.

        But yes, I of course agree that the censoring of history is bad, no matter the country.

  • crimsonarmor

    Oh god another dumb idea about boycotting japanese products again? don’t make me laugh. Chinese have been running over there to buy non-contaminated products like rice recently. Ok if you wanna boycott then that includes all the anime, Japan porn and cosplay parties that chinsese love so much. Do you think China never changed their history books? or hid the truth from the public?

  • willze

    As expected half the readers of chinasmack who only come here to read about a country they hate or are jealous of so much change the subject to Chinese internal history and not Japanese imperial history. Pathetic.

    • Ryan

      The Chinese government is dishonest about their imperial history as well. But apparently they get a free pass.
      Again, I guess I just “don’t understand Chinese culture”.

      • mr.wiener

        You’re learning.

        • Ryan

          I guess because China WON their imperial conquests of Tibet and Xinjiang that they’re now allowed to alter all history about it.
          Yeah, that sure seems fair.

          So I guess if Japan won their conquests of China, Chinese people would in that alternate reality have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER if Japan just altered all the history about the conquests.

          It’s so infuriating.
          My apparent “lack of understanding of Chinese culture” makes my interpretation of it infuriating.

          • mr.wiener

            “You don’t understand because you aren’t Chinese”

          • Alex Dương

            It isn’t that you don’t understand Chinese culture. It’s that you don’t understand Chinese history. Yes, Tibet and Xinjiang are Chinese because of historical Chinese imperialism. There’s certainly no “inherent” Chinese right to either territory.

            If you think this means the Chinese have to leave, then I hope you have immediate plans to leave Canada.

          • Ryan

            So if China gained so much land from what you admit is imperialistic conquest, then why does China always add the IMPERIALIST catch phrase when talking about America, as if Chinas any better?

          • Alex Dương

            Always? When was the last time that happened?

          • Ryan

            Canada teaches directly in history what specifically happened to first nations people. Canada accepts and flat out ENCOURAGES open discussion about first nations issues. Canada allows first nations people to vote in the Canadian government.
            I’m not saying that Canada (or any government for that matter) is PERFECT on the issue.

            But as a matter of comparison…

            The specific history of what happened in Tibet has been hidden/altered by the Chinese government. Open discussion about the issue is flat out BANNED in the country, to the point that people can be IMPRISONED for open discourse. Tibetan people are conquered and have no voice in the government of China.

            Yet you still try to make an equal comparison to the issues. It’s flat out shameful what you’re defending.
            I question if it’s any better than Germans in the late 1930’s defending the 3rd Reich.

            Shame on you for defending such heinous actions.
            For SHAME!!!

          • Alex Dương

            So if China admitted that its claims to Tibet originate from 18th Century imperialism and gave Tibetans (and all other Chinese citizens) the right to vote, you’d be OK with Chinese claims to Tibet? Or would you find some other excuse?

          • Ryan

            China’s claims to Tibet span from NINETEEN FIFTIES imperialism. Because Tibet kicked out the Qing and declared their independence in 1912. I know that that was erased form Chinese history books (censorship), but it’s what happened. Just like the chinese kicked out the Mongols in 1368 (is it the Mongols inherent right to rule China forever thereafter?)
            If the Mongols conquered China today, would you admit it was their inherent right? Of course not. Just like it wasn’t the CCP’s inherent right to invade Tibet in 1950. Because in both accounts independence was fought for and declared.

            So yes, if China declared it’s 1950 invasion of Tibet as illegal, made all discourse about it free and open (ended censorship) and gave the Tibetan people voting rights in the Chinese government… AT THAT POINT I’d admit that it’s a comparable issue to First Nations in Canada. Until then, you’re just an ignorant asshole defending an abhorrent organization.

          • Alex Dương

            Ryan, I am really tired of your intellectual dishonesty. You periodically reappear and post the same tired nonsense over and over again. You won’t shut up unless the Chinese admit that the lie you believe is the truth. That’s garbage.

            Chinese claims to Tibet date back to the 18th Century and no earlier than that. At no point after 1912 did modern China – be it the ROC or the PRC – ever relinquish its claim to Tibet, nor was it ever forced to relinquish it. Neither your country nor the U.K. ever recognized Tibetan independence from China during this time. In fact, for 94 years from 1914 to 2008, the U.K. insisted that Tibet was a Chinese vassal state.

            Given that these are the facts, why should China admit that its claims to Tibet only date back to 1951?

          • Ryan

            First of all, the British stance was that China had Suzerainty over Tibet, not Sovereignty. Sovereignty was only established after the 1959 imperialistic invasion of Tibet by the PRC.
            But this is just politics. I’m sure you don’t care what western stances on Taiwan were in the past. Only when they suit your agenda.
            The people of Tibet rebelled against and kicked out the Qing just prior to it’s collapse. Then, like four Chinese governments later, an imperialistic invasion of Tibet occurred. That’s what happened. Anything else is just propaganda, spin, and lies.

            But yes, in answer to your previous question…
            If China admitted to the truth of it’s imperialist invasions of Tibet, ended censorship, gave the Tibetans free speech, stopped jailing people for discussing it, and allowed Tibetans to vote in federal elections… then yes, I would at that point agree with your comparison to First Nations in Canada.

          • Alex Dương

            First of all, the British stance was that China had Suzerainty over Tibet, not Sovereignty.

            Yeah, suzerainty means “Tibet was a Chinese vassal state.” If you acknowledge this, then you admit that the U.K. NEVER recognized Tibetan sovereignty between 1914 and 2008. Neither did your country.

            However, the ROC never accepted this position of Chinese suzerainty. Nor did the U.K. ever force it to accept this position. The ROC continued to insist that Tibet was a part of China. You may like to pretend that the Chinese accepted Tibetan sovereignty before 1951 and that they decided afterward that Tibet was “always Chinese,” but that simply was not true. Modern China, be it the ROC or the PRC, never relinquished its claim to Tibet.

            I’m sure you don’t care what western stances on Taiwan were in the past.

            Funny that you bring up Taiwan and the past. The KMT cared so much about the ROC’s claim to Tibet that it actually picked the 10th Panchen Lama and tried to persuade him to come with them to Taiwan.

            If China admitted to the truth of it’s imperialist invasions of Tibet…

            Your truth is a lie. Chinese claims to Tibet predate 1951. You admit this if you acknowledge that the U.K. recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet from 1914 (hey, that’s before 1951!) until 2008.

          • Ryan

            The British stance was Suzerainty. Meaning that the people of Tibet were allowed to have internal autonomy.
            This “Suzerainty” of course ended with the 1959 Imperialistic Invasion of Tibet. There is no internal autonomy there. There’s soldiers with firearms standing on every street corner in Lhasa. I’ve been there.
            It’s DISGUSTING what you’re defending.

            Tell me, do you support the British stance that Suzerainty ended with the 1959 imperialist invasion of Tibet? Or disagree with it? Because to me, it looks like you’re “picking and choosing” only the parts that fit your agenda. Just like a propagandist.

            Again, if China went back to making Tibet a Suzerain, gave them local control, ended censorship, stopped lying about the past, and stopped what many describe as a borderline genocide of the Tibetan people… at that point, I would be perfectly fine with the situation.
            Until then, it’s just despicable people defending a despicable situation.

          • Alex Dương

            The British stance was Suzerainty. Meaning that the people of Tibet were allowed to have internal autonomy.

            Meaning that the U.K. didn’t recognize Tibetan independence.

            Tell me, do you support the British stance that Suzerainty ended with the 1959 imperialist invasion of Tibet?

            Once again, you are confused. The British continued to insist until 2008 that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty. As I said, the Chinese never accepted that, and neither do I.

          • Ryan

            But YOU brought up the British stance. YOU brought it up.
            And the British stance is that China only has a right to a SUZERAINTY over Tibet, which of course was broken by the 1959 imperialistic invasion.
            And now you say “but that’s just the British stance”. But YOU brought it up.
            What on earth is happening?

          • Alex Dương

            Yep, I brought it up…to prove that you are wrong. If Chinese claims to Tibet only date back to 1951, why did the Chinese disagree with Britain’s position starting in 1914? Oh, no answer from you, of course.

            And even here, you’re still wrong. Until 2008, the British continued to insist, regardless of reality, that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty.

          • Ryan

            But YOU brought up the British stance…
            And now that it’s shown that it was a stupid thing for you to bring up, you back pedal with “But… uh… China never agreed with the British stance anyways.”.

            You clearly DISAGREE with the British stance, yet cite the British stance as proving my position wrong.
            You don’t see that as flat out insane?
            Again, what on earth is happening?

          • Alex Dương

            Yep, I brought it up…to prove that you are wrong. If Chinese claims to Tibet only date back to 1951, why did the Chinese disagree with Britain’s position starting in 1914? Oh, no answer from you, of course.

          • Ryan

            So the Chinese government disagrees with the British stance. And you yourself disagree with the British stance.
            Yet the British stance (that you and China disagree with) proves my stance wrong.
            Wow.
            This is a new low in argumentation history.

          • Alex Dương

            No, this is just another example of your poor critical thinking skills. If the Chinese disagreed with the British starting in 1914, then clearly, Chinese claims to Tibet predate 1951.

          • Ryan

            Sure, China still “claimed” Tibet 1914-1959. Just like they (LOL) claim pretty much the entire South China Sea.
            So what?
            China claims the land they want. Usually just words. But sometimes they act on it. Like, for example, China’s imperialistic invasion of Tibet in 1959.
            Tibet rebelled against the Qing. Declared independence. And was invaded four or five Chinese governments later. An imperialist invasion.

          • Alex Dương

            Yeah, in the case of Tibet, it wasn’t just words. If you think the ROC didn’t care about Tibet, then explain why

            1. the KMT patronized the 9th Panchen Lama,
            2. the KMT selected the 10th Panchen Lama, and
            3. the KMT attempted to get the 10th Panchen Lama to come with them to Taiwan.

            Tibetan history is so, so, so much more interesting than what either the CCP or the TGiE make it out to be. Of course, this is bad for people like you because it screws up your narrative.

          • Scilyvié

            WTF? When did China alter their history that Tibet and Xinjiang wasn’t won by imperial conquest? If anything everyone knows they were won over during the Qing dynasty(by: surprise, surprise, Imperial Conquest). The PRC and ROC then simply claimed it because they saw themselves as the succession of Qing (albeit under a different name). Now, the legitimacy of their claims however, is about as legitimate as the Colonist’s claims of America over the Natives, or the Australian/NZ government claims of Australian/NZ over the Australian Aboriginals and the Maoris. But Hey, aren’t those parties still ruling over there? And so far from the looks of it, they have no intention of returning the ruling rights either.

  • Cameron

    This article is about Japan

    • guest

      Yeah, but that commenter is complaining about the hypocrisy of the Chinese. They complain about Japan altering history when the Chinese do the same thing

      • Alex Dương

        Chinese netizens do this quite frequently: non-Chinese criticize something about China; Chinese netizens respond with “you do it too.” The non-Chinese critics are seldom, if ever, persuaded with this response. Isn’t it funny that “you do it too” is now used by non-Chinese critics in this case?

  • RagnarDanneskjold

    China literally changes their positions based on who they are allied with now. If Russia decided to invade China and Japan helped fight Russia, suddenly China would change Diaoyus to Senkaku. Even Chinese people notice this, you can tell by which nation’s name they use, who they are allied with on other issues.

    Japan are dicks for not admitting all the atrocities they did…BUT…look at how the Germans were raked over the coals for decades for admitting to what happened. Instead of being forgiven, there were people suing companies like Volkswagon into the 1990s. From a legal standpoint, the German experience shows you should deny everything until everyone involved is dead. It doesn’t matter if those lawsuits are valid or not, the point is that once you apologize, you are open to being sued.

    Finally, Japan and China already got over the war in the 1970s. Since the 1990s, a core government strategy to maintain support for the CCP is to foment nationalism, particularly against Japan. Also, this battle is more about how Koreans, Japanese and Chinese are quite racist and dislike each other to a degree that was never the case with Germans, British and Americans, for example, who exchanged Christmas gifts during WWI and who treated prisoners as well as possible even in WWII.

    • Alex Dương

      I don’t think Germany’s experience was the same as Japan’s. I don’t think Israeli and Polish relations with Germany are anywhere near as bad as Chinese and Korean relations with Japan.

    • Eidolon

      “Also, this battle is more about how Koreans, Japanese and Chinese are quite racist and dislike each other to a degree that was never the case with Germans, British and Americans…”

      …Because the Germans, the British, and the Americans never actually hated each other, except as was necessitated by the war. Hitler’s ire was towards the Jews, the Gypsies, and the Slavs. What cause did the British and the Americans have for hating the Germans, except as enemies during the war? All three are Western European peoples who collectively thought of themselves as “white” and who spoke a Germanic language. Hitler’s Aryan label didn’t just apply to Germans, you know. He thought of the British and the Americans as fellow Aryans who have been duped by the Jews.

    • Scilyvié

      Contrary to your beliefs, Japan, Korea and China had relatively good relations for many many centuries(dating back to around the Tang dynasty) before WWII/European expansion. They only started to hate each other around WWII and afterwards. Quite unlike the English, French and Germans who waged many wars against each other throughout history.

  • Ghazi

    The Chinese aren’t really in a position to criticize anybody for
    changing history in their school textbooks considering they still teach
    Chinese schoolchildren that Genghis Khan was a “a great Chinese leader”,
    amongst other things.

    • Alex Dương

      So it’s OK for Japan to get a pass on this because China doesn’t do a good job? Since when is China the appropriate benchmark for Japan?

      • Ghazi

        I didn’t say that China doesn’t do a good job. I said that the Chinese change history in their school text books and teach their children absurd self-aggrandizing bullshit. Therefore, they really aren’t in a position to squawk too loudly when another country does the same.

        • Alex Dương

          Um, “changing history and teaching absurd self-aggrandizing bullshit” is not doing a good job, no? Unless you think I was being too mild, in which case, no problem – I’ll rephrase.

          It’s OK for Japan to get a pass on this because China teaches absurd self-aggrandizing bullshit? Since when is China the appropriate benchmark for Japan?

          • Ghazi

            Who said it’s ok for Japan to get a pass on this?

          • Alex Dương

            Aren’t you saying that with your tu quoque argument?

          • Ghazi

            No, what I said was that the Chinese aren’t really in a position to criticize anybody for fucking with history considering they do the exact same thing.

          • Alex Dương

            Which is a tu quoque argument. If that was all you wanted to say and didn’t want to conclude anything from it, OK.

          • Ghazi

            Nether of them should get a pass on it. Twisting history for self-serving nationalistic ends is a very slippery slope. And until the Chinese quit claiming Genghis Khan as one of their own, amongst other things, then they shouldn’t stick their tails up in the air when somebody else does it.

          • Eidolon

            Do you even understand what a tu quoque is? It’s a rhetorical fallacy. It shows that your position is logically fallacious, and therefore that you are not a rational thinker.

    • Eidolon

      So you’d rather the PRC teach Chinese school children that Genghis Khan was a terrible Mongol murderer who massacred the Chinese and raped their children? Do you even understand how this sort of education is problematic when you have an actual Mongol minority living inside your country…?

      All countries have politically correct standards that they follow when teaching history. The American education system, for example, paints the Native Americans as “noble savages” even though they were every bit as bloodthirsty as the European colonists, because it doesn’t want to look “racist.” The Chinese system tries to paint the Mongols and the Chinese as being closer than they actually were so as to integrate the Mongol minority living in China.

      But there is a trade off – and the trade off is offending people outside the country – ie Mongolians in Mongolia in the case of China, and Chinese everywhere in the case of Japan. Provided Japan is okay with paying the price, then they are free to do whatever they want with their history.

      • Ghazi

        Really? Is that why you think they teach the children that Genghis Khan was a great Chinese leader? To avoid upsetting the children’s sensibilities, and to avoid offending the Mongolians? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything so ridiculous. Firstly, I’ve met many Chinese adults who claim that Genghis Khan was Chinese. I’ve not spoken to any children about it. And it is actually possible to teach history to children without including mention of rapes and massacres.
        Also, do you not think it’s offensive to Mongolians when the Chinese try and claim their preeminent national hero as one of their own?

        • Eidolon

          Don’t put words in my mouth. Read it again, carefully this time.

          • Ghazi

            I read it carefully the first time. It’s not ‘politically correct’ to try and co-opt another countries national hero’s.

          • Eidolon

            It is when the ideological basis of your country is a multi-ethnic union. Plenty of countries do it, in fact. The British, for example, consider the Normans English heritage and continue to honor the descendants of the Norman invaders – ie the English royal family – as icons of England. Yet the Normans weren’t ethnically English, were they? No. In fact, the very name England comes from the Anglo-Saxons who were conquered by the Normans. Technically speaking the Angles and the Normans were bitter enemies, and William the Conqueror is a Frankish hero. So by what do they portray the Kings of Britain as English?

          • Ghazi

            No, the Norman’s weren’t ethnically English, and nobody pretends otherwise. So I fail to see your point.
            And actually, the current monarchy has a German lineage. Again, so what? Nobody’s twisting history for any nationalistic purposes, re: England and the English.

          • Eidolon

            You don’t look to understand what the ‘Chinese hero’ story was all about. No one in China is claiming that Genghis Khan was ethnically Han Chinese. They didn’t distort his ancestry. They didn’t pretend he was born in China. Rather, they are claiming that Genghis Khan counts as a Chinese hero because Chinese is not just Han Chinese, but also Mongol, Manchu, Hui, Tibetan, etc. It’s equivalent to calling Pocahontas an American hero. Do you understand it yet?

          • Ghazi

            Ridiculous. That’s like claiming that because some Indians live in England, that Ghandi was therefore English.
            Do I understand it yet? Yeah, I understand that you’re full of it.

          • Eidolon

            It’s as though I’m talking to a brick wall. The term “Chinese hero” is not a retrospective ethnic designation. It is a national concept, based on the multi-ethnic ideology of the PRC in which “China” is an union of fifty-six ethnic groups. The history of all fifty-six ethnic groups is considered the history of China ie “Chinese history.” It is then obvious why Genghis Khan is, under this rubric, a “Chinese hero.”

            It’s not a statement about what ethnicity Genghis Khan belonged to back when he was conquering the world. It’s a statement about , the same way the English consider William the Conqueror a famous English person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_people#Monarchs.

            Again, there are plenty of sources that regard Pocahontas as an American heroine. Do you take offense to that, too?

          • Ghazi

            Except that Mongolians proper are not a mere ethnic minority of China; they’re an independent people, and always have been, apart from the 200 year period during the Qing dynasty when Mongolia was effectively ruled by the Manchu’s.

            As for Pocahontas, your analogy is irrelevant. She was a native American, who lived and died on American soil.
            Genghis Khan was not Chinese. He never lived in China, and he didn’t die in China (despite the Chinese creating Genghis Khan’s so-called ‘Mausoleum’ in inner Mongolia, even though his body was never found, and most Mongolians believe his burial site to be East of Ullanbaataar.

          • Eidolon

            I don’t know whether you know this, but China has a greater population of “Mongols” than Mongolia does. You propose the PRC government simply ignore them and pretend they don’t exist in its writing of national history?

          • Ghazi

            Yeah, that’s what I said. *Yawn*

          • Ghazi

            Are you suggesting that the ethnic Mongolian population of China, outside of Mongolia itself, would be pleased to have their country of origin’s history distorted and co-opted by China?

            Germany occupied France and Poland during WWII, Does that mean that France now has a legal claim of ownership of Poland? Following your logic it does. The Mongols captured China in 1279AD and ruled the country for approx 100 years.

            ‘As Genghis Khan’s Mongol Empire expanded toward Europe in the west and China in the east in the thirteenth century, the Tibetan leaders of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism concluded an agreement with the Mongol rulers in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable conquest of Tibet.
            They promised political allegiance and religious blessings and teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan dynasty, he invited the Sakya Lama to become the Imperial Preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire.’

            So according to you, based on the fact that the Mongols effectively took control of Tibet in the 13th Century, China now has a right to ownership of Tibet? Righteo.

            ‘This relatively brief period of foreign domination over Tibet occurred 700 years ago. Tibet broke away from the Yuan emperor before China regained its independence from the Mongols with the establishment of the native Ming dynasty. Not until the eighteenth century did Tibet once again come under a degree of foreign influence.’

          • Eidolon

            China isn’t claiming Genghis Khan is a Chinese hero because Genghis Khan conquered China. China is claiming Genghis Khan is a Chinese hero because there are over 6 million Mongols in China – 2x the population of Mongolia. Chinese authorities are fully capable of asserting that, because 66% of the world’s Mongol population are Chinese citizens, China has a right to Genghis Khan’s legacy.

            Every minority group in China wants to see its own history, culture, and tradition immortalized in the national narrative. Mongol Chinese are no exception. Calling Genghis Khan a Chinese hero is not the act of changing Khan’s historical ethnic identity. Quite the opposite – it’s the act of changing modern Chinese identity to include the Mongols.

            And yes, the Mongols were independent of China in the past. But today, 66% of them aren’t. Times change.

          • Ghazi

            It amazes me that you fail to see the utter absurdity of your ‘argument’.
            More Irish live in the U.S now than in Ireland. So according to your weird logic James Joyce and Michael Collins are Americans.
            So what if times change? Mongolia is still an independent, sovereign nation with it’s own culture, language, traditions, and heritage. The fact that some Mongolians now live in China doesn’t mean that the Chinese now have a right to claim that Genghis Khan was a great Chinese leader. He wasn’t Chinese, and he never led China. Period.

          • Eidolon

            It is only absurd because of your limited capacity for understanding views other than your own.

            This is a problem of personality and irreparable. In fact, I have given you several opportunities to see the problem with your examples, but you keep giving the same examples, indicating a failure of logical processing.

            I write this long after your comment because I frankly don’t want to engage in a time-wasting one-sided conversation in which each of us simply repeat ad infinitum what we said before, so for the last time – you keep using the US as an example, but the US is a piss poor example because the Mongols aren’t immigrants to the PRC. The Mongols are *natives of the PRC*.

            In the 20th century, the PRC defined China as an union of 56 peoples. Whether you enjoy the fact that the PRC defines itself as a multi-ethnic nation that includes the Mongols as one of its constituents, that is the fact on the ground. I am not telling you to accept the PRC’s definition of itself. I am telling you that you have no idea what “Genghis Khan is Chinese” stands for, because it isn’t a case of going back and saying that Genghis Khan was an ethnic Chinese, which is what you’ve tried to portray it as repeatedly and erroneously.

            “Genghis Khan is a Chinese hero” => “Genghis Khan is a hero of the Mongol people, who are one of the peoples of China; therefore, he is a hero of China.” It’s that simple. It isn’t a statement about Genghis’s ethnicity in the 13th century, but a statement about what he stands for in the modern world.

            It’s as though the US absorbed Mexico, renamed itself Amerixico, redefined its identity as the merger of US and Mexico, and then after a hundred years said, “Emiliano Zapata is a great Amerixico hero.” Emiliano Zapata was of course not of Amerixico ethnicity back when he was alive. But he’d still be considered an Amerixico hero because Amerixico is defined as a joining of the US and Mexico, and therefore a heir of both historical traditions.

            The absurdity of your definition – that because Genghis never led China and was not of Chinese ethnicity, therefore China has no right to say that he’s a Chinese hero – is that by that definition, lists of this sort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italians are complete bullshit because the Romans were not Italian ethnically and never led a country called “Italy.” Yet here we are, time and time again, with these lists. Why are the Chinese so special as to be excluded?

          • Ghazi

            Interesting convoluted bullshit. From someone who initially claimed that Genghis Khan conquered China. He didn’t. He’d been dead fifty years before his Grandson conquered China. But I can see that you’re so absorbed in your own personal fantasies that the facts are completely irrelevant to you.
            Secondly, you claim that Mongolians are a Chinese ethnic minority group. Again, this is more bullshit. I don’t know how many Mongolians living within Inner Mongolia consider themselves to be Chinese, but the Mongolians living within Mongolia proper certainly don’t.
            To claim that Genghis Khan is a Chinese hero is an utter absurdity, and only a complete idiot, or an indoctrinated tool, would believe otherwise.

          • Alex Dương

            Secondly, you claim that Mongolians are a Chinese ethnic minority group. Again, this is more bullshit. I don’t know how many Mongolians living within Inner Mongolia consider themselves to be Chinese, but the Mongolians living within Mongolia proper certainly don’t.

            O…K…if ethnic Mongolians living in the PRC with PRC citizenship aren’t a Chinese ethnic minority, what are they, then?

          • guest

            I think he’s blurred two thoughts into one.

            I think he was trying to point out that Mongolian citziens in Mongolia can’t be defined as such in Mongolia. It’s a bit like saying your an ethnic minority in the USA, but it doesn’t make all Chinese a American minority when there a citizen of another country.. But as “Mongolians” with PRC citizenship he could be saying it’s similar to whats seen in UK with the terms Scotish, English, British etc individual self identification.

            Maybe you cut and quoted too much, if you just referring to the last sentence then yes I totally agree with you.

          • Alex Dương

            That may have been the case. Of course Mongolians in Mongolia aren’t a Chinese ethnic minority. But that doesn’t mean Mongolians in China aren’t either.

          • Ghazi

            I didn’t say that the Mongolians living within the PRC aren’t a Chinese ethnic minority. I said that the Mongolians living within Mongolia proper are not a Chinese ethnic minority. And Genghis Khan lived 800 years ago, before the Chinese annexed Inner Mongolia 700 years later, so he wasn’t part of any Chinese ethnic minority group. Also, he lived and died in the north Eastern part of Mongolia proper, so even if we stretch your ridiculous notion to pretending that anybody who happened to live in the region of Inner Mongolia 800 years ago can somehow magically be incorporated into the history of China, he still wouldn’t fit the bill.

          • Alex Dương

            I quoted what you said. You said, “you [Eidolon] claim that Mongolians are a Chinese ethnic minority group. Again, this is more bullshit.” You then followed that up with “I don’t know how many Mongolians living within Inner Mongolia consider themselves to be Chinese,” which also makes it seem like you don’t think Mongolians with PRC citizenship are a Chinese minority.

            Mongolian and Chinese history can’t be separated in this artificially clean way. Kublai Khan conquered China and his descendants ruled China for just under 100 years. As per tradition, Kublai Khan posthumously granted his grandfather the honorary title of “Founder of Yuan.” Guess what? That means that part of history is part of both Mongolian and Chinese history.

            If you think that that part of history can’t be a part of Chinese history, hey, I guess you think U.S. history starts in 1783.

          • Ghazi

            Why don’t you ask a Mongolian if he thinks Genghis Khan was ‘a great Chinese leader’?

          • Alex Dương

            Alright, so I guess all U.S. history textbooks should start in 1783 because everything was British history before then.

          • Ghazi

            I see you have a love of propping up straw man arguments – maybe because you have nothing else up your sleeve.

            Mongolia doesn’t belong to China, and apart from a relatively short period during the Qing dynasty, it never did. You have no case to argue.

          • Alex Dương

            It’s not a straw man; it’s an example that illustrates the absurdity of your false dichotomy that history in this case is either Mongolian or Chinese. And for someone talking about straw mans, it’s rather ironic that you claim that I’m arguing that Mongolia belongs to China. That’s not my argument; that isn’t anyone’s argument here. The only argument here shouldn’t even be an argument in the first place because it should be really damn obvious that neighboring countries can SHARE history together.

          • Ghazi

            This discussion isn’t about whether countries can have shared histories. Again, quit with the deflections. This discussion is centered on whether Genghis Khan can be considered to be ‘a great Chinese leader’. He can’t, because he wasn’t Chinese when he was born in 1162, he wasn’t Chinese when he died in 1227, he wasn’t Chinese when his Grandson conquered China in 1279, and he isn’t Chinese today.

            The Chinese have no right to try and co-opt Genghis Khan into their own history by claiming that the Mongols per se are a Chinese ethnic minority, despite having annexed the region of Inner Mongolia in 1947, and that therefore all of Mongolia’s historical figures can now be labelled ‘Chinese’.

            Your case is pathetic.

          • Alex Dương

            He can’t, because he wasn’t Chinese when he was born in 1162, he wasn’t Chinese when he died in 1227, he wasn’t Chinese when his Grandson conquered China in 1279, and he isn’t Chinese today.

            Sure he can. Kublai Khan posthumously granted his grandfather the honorary title of “Founder of Yuan.”

            The Chinese have no right to try and co-opt Genghis Khan into their own history by claiming that the Mongols per se are a Chinese ethnic minority, despite having annexed the region of Inner Mongolia in 1947, and that therefore all of Mongolia’s historical figures can now be labelled ‘Chinese’.

            So what would you have the PRC do? Treat Mongolians as if they were second-class citizens? A permanently other “non-Chinese” class? Oh wait, according to you, the Chinese already do that with the Tibetans, and you hate that. Gee, so if the Chinese “co-opt Genghis Khan into their own history,” they’re misappropriating another country’s history. But if they try to ignore Mongolian history and culture, then they’re committing cultural genocide.

            What a surprise, at the end of the day, you are just looking for an excuse to bash China.

          • Ghazi

            Kublai Khan granting his grandfather the title of ‘Founder of Yuan’ doesn’t make Genghis Khan a Chinese hero. He wasn’t Chinese, he never led China. and he actually fought against, and was an enemy of, China.
            What would I have the PRC do? I’d have them stick to the historical record in their history books, instead of twisting history to their own ends, and feeding Chinese students a pile of bullshit. And sticking to the historical record does not constitute treating any ethnic minority as second-class citizens. Again, you’re deflecting.

          • Alex Dương

            Kublai Khan granting his grandfather the title of ‘Founder of Yuan’ doesn’t make Genghis Khan a Chinese hero.

            Sure it does. Kublai Khan made Genghis Khan a Chinese hero, even if only on paper.

            He wasn’t Chinese, he never led China. and he actually fought against, and was an enemy of, China.

            2 out of these 3 things also apply to Kublai Khan. If we take your position to its extreme, Chinese history should completely exclude the Yuan Dynasty and treat all 98 years of its rule as part of “world history” from the perspective of China.

            I’d have them stick to the historical record in their history books, instead of twisting history to their own ends, and feeding Chinese students a pile of bullshit. And sticking to the historical record does not constitute treating any ethnic minority as second-class citizens.

            It does in your case. “Sticking to the historical record” to you means the PRC has to tell its ethnic Mongolian citizens that they’re all descended from foreigners and that their ethnic group’s history is “world history” instead of Chinese history. Of course, such a statement is totally not blatant othering and totally does not imply second-class citizenship.

            I’m not deflecting anything. I’m pointing out how cheap your mindset is. Whatever the Chinese do, it’s always wrong. Ignore Mongolian culture and history? Cultural genocide! Accommodate Mongolian culture and history? Cultural misappropriation! As always, Catch 22s are pathetic.

          • meis

            What a noob. You’ve Mongolian or Manchu friends? If no then stfu. Some of them (if not all) called themselves as: Manchu-Chinese. You know why? They mixed with Han Chinese for generations. Do you even know the “Chinese” people (people who live in China) are mixed race/ethnic people (all humans are mixed fyi)? They have been doing it for thousands of years.

          • Ghazi

            STFU? Ha ha. Internet tough guy.

            The gibberish you just spouted still doesn’t make Genghis Khan ‘a great Chinese leader’. He wasn’t Chinese, and he never led China. Moron.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            the Mongolians living within Mongolia proper certainly don’t

            They are a minority of world’s total Mongolian population so their opinion is irrelevant.

          • Alex Dương

            Of course what Mongolians think about their history is relevant.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            But the majority of Mongolians live in China

          • Alex Dương

            True. But that doesn’t mean what Mongolians in Mongolia think about their history is irrelevant.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            But Mongolians in China think differently.

          • Alex Dương

            Why is that a problem?

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            Therefore if what Mongolians think is what really matters, then Genghis Khan is a Chinese hero.

          • Alex Dương

            I think both you and Ghazi are viewing this the same way but coming from opposite sides. Both of you view the issue too narrowly in an either-or fashion. It does matter that there are more Mongolians in China than in Mongolia; it’s not a good thing for social cohesion if ethnic Mongolians with PRC citizenship are taught that they’re all descended from foreigners and that their history is actually foreign history.

            But it also matters that Mongolia is a sovereign country. What they think about themselves and their history also matters.

          • Ghazi

            Why did the Chinese build the great wall? Who were they trying to protect the country from? Let me guess: They were trying to protect themselves from themselves – the ‘Chinese-Mongolians’, right?

          • Eidolon

            …And this is why I told you to read carefully. You don’t get it at all. Until you do, this is a waste of time.

          • Ghazi

            What you don’t get is that you, or anybody else, have no right to change history according to your self-serving, weird whims.

            Why don’t you take a trip to Mongolia and tell every Mongolian you meet that Genghis Khan was a great Chinese leader? See what reaction you get.

    • Scilyvié

      Chinese history is a little different to what you imagine. Chinese is a nationality not an ethnicity. Everybody educated in China knows that Genghis Khan was Mongolian. And he was known as the ruler of Yuan, a Mongol dynasty. Another example is Qing, which was very similar to Yuan(aka. mongol dynasty) as both dynasties were ruled by ethnic minorities. Qing was ruled by the Manchus, who certainly did not consider themselves Han, but did indeed consider themselves Chinese, and the Mongols were kind of incorporated because during Qing dynasty as there was a strong sentiment that Manchurians and Mongolians were ‘one family’ (hence why we have the inner Mongolians).
      Edit: OMG I just realized that ‘Eidolon’ had explained everything much clearer than I had. And yet you still fail to recognize the KEY factors:
      – Chinese is a nationality not ethnicity.
      – Chinese people know that he was Mongolian, and they are not claiming him to be otherwise.
      – Rather than saying he was a ‘Chinese Hero’ it’s more accurate to say he was a ‘Hero of China’ (someone China honours).

      • Ghazi

        Genghis Khan didn’t set up the Yuan dynasty. The Yuan dynasty began in 1279. Genghis Khan died in 1227.
        As for Mongolians feeling themselves ‘incorporated’ into China during the Qing dyansty, this is highly unlikely, but nonetheless completely irrelevant considering the fact that we’re talking about two distinct time periods approx 600 years apart.

        As for Chinese people knowing that he was Mongolian, that’s not true either. I’ve had many discussions on this subject, and invariably the Chinese person I’m talking to tells me that he was Chinese, and that Mongolians are/were simply a Chinese minority group, which is bullshit. You can maybe describe those Mongolians living within China as a minority group, but that term does not apply to Mongolians living in Mongolia. Mongolia is not a province of China. It’s an independent country, and apart from the period of Manchu rule during the Qing dynasty, it always has been.

        • takasar1

          when you have more mongolians in china than mongolia, then you open yourself up to these little confusions and trivialities.

          • Ghazi

            Nonsense. Historical facts don’t change because of future human migrations.

          • Alex Dương

            Future migrations? You are aware that Inner Mongolia and Mongolia the country used to be together, right?

          • Ghazi

            Yeah, I’m perfectly aware of that. But it’s yet another irrelevance. Karakorum – the 13th Century capital of the Mongolian empire – was nowhere near Inner Mongolia.

            Genghis Khan wasn’t Chinese in 1227, and he hasn’t become Chinese since, despite any subsequent population shifts, or changing borders, that you may care to mention.

          • Alex Dương

            It’s pretty cheap to insinuate that Mongolians in China are there because of “future human migrations” and then say that it doesn’t matter that Inner Mongolia and Mongolia the country used to be one.

          • Ghazi

            Not all Mongolians in China live in Inner Mongolia.

          • Alex Dương

            The majority live in Inner Mongolia.

          • Ghazi

            So what. That still doesn’t magically make Genghis Khan a Chinese leader.

            The Majority of Irish live on the U.S East coast. Is James Joyce now American?

          • Alex Dương

            Bad example. Were the U.S. and Ireland ever together? No. Were Inner Mongolia and Mongolia ever together? Yes.

          • Ghazi

            That still doesn’t make Genghis Khan a Chinese leader. He wasn’t Chinese, and he never led China. He was Mongolian, and he’d been dead fifty years before the start of the Yuan dynasty.

          • Alex Dương

            That’s all you have to say. You don’t have to complicate the issue with a misleading and incorrect reference to “future human migration.”

          • Ghazi

            You’re an expert on Mongolian historical migrations? Why didn’t you say? You know all about the movement of peoples in Mongolia over the past 700 years? That’s great. So tell me; how many Mongolians migrated to Inner Mongolia during and after the Qing Dynasty?

          • Alex Dương

            You want to obfuscate the issue and pretend that Inner Mongolia and Mongolia weren’t previously together? No thanks, I have no interest.

          • Ghazi

            I never said anything of the sort. You seem to have a weird penchant for making sh*t up.

          • Alex Dương

            No, Ghazi, I have a penchant for sticking with the facts. If you want to claim that Tibet had a “patron-priest relationship” with the Qing, find a source that isn’t affiliated with a Tibetan exile organization. If you want to claim that the British and the Chinese recognized Tibetan independence in 1914, how about you explain why the Simla Accord explicitly referred to “suzerainty” instead of “sovereignty”?

          • Ghazi

            Ryan has already addressed the points you raise here. But I can see that you dismiss every fact that contradicts your fixed viewpoint.

          • Alex Dương

            Indeed, Ryan acknowledged that the British recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, not Tibetan sovereignty as you wrongly claimed. Really, Ghazi, it’s absurdly dishonest to state as “fact” that the Simla Accord recognized Tibetan sovereignty. Just read the damn thing, and you’ll see that isn’t true.

            But Ryan never provided any independent sources that supported the “patron-priest relationship” claim, and neither have you. Tibetan exile propaganda and facts aren’t the same thing.

          • Ghazi

            The only source you’ve provided is that by Elliot Sperling. You read the views of one pro-China scholar and take that as Gospel truth.

            Tibet was recognized as a sovereign nation by practically every country on the planet, except China.

          • Alex Dương

            You read the views of one pro-China scholar and take that as Gospel truth.

            This type of black-and-white thinking is so typical from the pro-Tibet crowd. Sperling is not a “pro-China scholar”; had you bothered to read what I linked to you, you would have seen that Sperling also argues that the official CCP position is as self-serving and inaccurate as the Tibetan exile position, if not more. Moreover, Sperling has been denied entry to China in the last year. But of course, any arguments inconsistent with Tibetan exile propaganda must be a sign of pro-Chinese bias!

            Sperling does not dispute the existence of a patron priest relationship. He disputes its interpretation as “China had no political control or even influence over Tibet.” The most obvious counterexample of that argument is the Golden Urn. Of course, the Tibetan exile narrative is that the Golden Urn was seldom used in practice, but that is irrelevant; if they acknowledge its existence, then they must acknowledge that the Qing had the intent to exert political control over Tibet.

            Tibet was recognized as a sovereign nation by practically every country on the planet, except China. And I’ve already provided evidence of this. But like I already said, you dismiss any inconvenient facts that challenge and/or contradict your pro-Chinese version of history.

            You have provided no evidence to support the incorrect claim that “Tibet was recognized as a sovereign nation by practically every country on the planet, except China.” What you’ve done is refer to the ICJ, which isn’t a country; refer to complaints from certain countries, which don’t constitute recognition; and resort to outright lies, such as the Simla Accord recognized Tibetan sovereignty when it in fact asserted the British perspective of Chinese suzerainty.

          • Ghazi

            The ‘complaints’ made by certain countries after the Chinese invasion were made in international arenas, and so constitute formal recognition. Either way, the international status of a country must be determined by objective legal criteria rather than subjective political ones. Otherwise states would come and go according to changing political expediencies.

            Tibet formally declared its independence in 1912 and
            continued to conduct itself as a fully sovereign nation until its invasion by China in 1949.

          • Alex Dương

            Neither the Philippines nor the U.S. ever recognized Tibet as a sovereign nation. You can’t name a single country that actually recognized Tibetan sovereignty between 1912 and 1951 because no country did.

          • Ghazi

            The international status of a country must be determined by objective legal criteria rather than subjective political ones.

            Do the Tibetan people have the right of self-determination under customary international law? They fulfill every criteria, considering Tibetans are a distinct ethnic group with their own language, religion, culture and history completely distinct from that of the Chinese people. Or do you disagree, and believe that they have no rights, and deserve to be crushed/subsumed by the Chinese?

          • Alex Dương

            Now you’re talking about a different point. I have no problems with people arguing for Tibetan self-determination. I have big problems with people pushing lies about Tibetan and Chinese history as facts.

          • Ghazi

            Lies? No, not lies, just facts with which you disagree. Many countries made statements during the early and middle 20th Century in international arenas, such as the United Nations, recognizing Tibet as a sovereign nation, but you self-servingly interpret such statements of recognition as mere ‘complaints’, and then accuse me of lying.
            Like I’ve said above, you simply dismiss, or twist, facts that challenge your pro-Chinese imperialist version of events.

          • Alex Dương

            Yes, lies. Like this one:

            As recently as 1914, a treaty was signed by Britain, China and Tibet that formally recognized Tibet as a fully independent country and demarcated Tibet’s borders.

            Have you ever bothered to read the actual text of the Simla Accord? If you did, you’d know that the U.K. never recognized Tibet as a “fully independent country.” To the contrary, the U.K. insisted that “Tibet is under the suzerainty of China.”

            If you want to say that Tibet had a non-political “patron-priest relationship” with China, I can agree to disagree. At least you can cite Barnett on that one. But if you’re saying stuff like what I quoted above, then you either never bothered to read the Simla Accord or you’re dishonest (i.e. lying).

            Many countries made statements during the early and middle 20th Century in international arenas, such as the United Nations, recognizing Tibet as a sovereign nation

            Cite one.

          • Ghazi

            And just what did the suzerainty entail? According to Sam van Schaik it meant that “China was responsible for Tibet’s international affairs, but would have little influence in its internal affairs.”

          • Alex Dương

            Yeah, that’s what suzerainty means in general. It also means that your claim of Tibet being recognized “as a fully independent country” is incorrect.

          • Ghazi

            If Tibet wasn’t recognized as a sovereign nation before 1951 then why did Britain and the U.S accept a Tibetan trade delegation in 1948 using Tibetan passports?

            Also, although most Western countries bowed to Chinese pressure by not explicitly declaring Tibet’s independence, they still dealt with the government of Tibet directly on numerous occasions during the first half of the 20th Century, without any involvement of China.

          • Alex Dương

            Since when does accepting a passport mean recognition of sovereignty? Seriously, Ghazi, you do realize that you’re proving with all your desperate attempts that you cannot name a country that actually recognized Tibet as independent?

          • Ghazi

            No desperation on my part. You clearly fail to understand the relevance of states recognizing the validity of passports as legal documents pertaining to nationality. Maybe you think that people can travel on passports relating to states that don’t exist?

          • Alex Dương

            How many countries in the world have diplomatic relations with Taiwan? 21. How many countries in the world accept a Taiwanese passport? More than 21 or 21?

          • Ghazi

            Just 23 countries have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, although Taiwanese passports are accepted by most countries, thereby giving tacit recognition of Taiwan’s status as an independent nation.

          • Alex Dương

            Indeed. So how come you can’t name even one country that gave such recognition to Tibet between 1912 and 1951?

          • Ghazi

            Such recognition? Britain and the U.S gave ‘such recognition’ by accepting Tibetan passports, on the one hand, and by conducting political affairs directly with the Tibetans, on the other hand.
            Anyway, why do you place so much importance on ‘recognition’? States aren’t legitimized merely at the whims of other states. Their legitimization is embodied within the tenets of international law. Though I can see why that would be a problem for you, and why you therefore keep choosing to deflect.

          • Alex Dương

            Yeah, such recognition as in 21 countries actually recognize Taiwan to this day; 0 countries recognized Tibet between 1912 and 1951.

            Please, Ghazi, don’t talk about deflection when you’re pulling this kind of crap. You try really hard to argue that passports and U.N. General Assembly debates are evidence of recognition. When you can’t do that anymore because even you realize how bad your arguments are, instead of just admitting that you can’t name one country that actually recognized Tibet as independent, you switch gears and say recognition doesn’t matter. It’s all about “international law.”

            I point out that your argument is still bad because it’s just cheap talk. It’s really convenient to say these things after the fact. Why didn’t anyone act on these principles before the fact? China was so weak between 1912 and 1951; nobody cared if China disagreed on Tibet. Look at the U.K.; it didn’t care that China never signed the Simla Accord. But did the U.K. ever recognize Tibet as a country? No. To the contrary, it voluntarily insisted that Tibet was a Chinese vassal.

            When you can’t answer this, you go back to your lame passport and U.N. GA points. Rinse and repeat. At the end of the day, you still can’t name a country that recognized Tibet as independent. You can say that “almost everybody” did, but you can’t actually name even one country.

          • Ghazi

            Actually, as anybody who’s been paying attention would know, I stated in one of my first comments that international law supersedes ‘recognition’. But keep singing that tune. I realize it’s all you have.

          • Alex Dương

            And yet you couldn’t resist trying to argue that passports and U.N. GA debates count as recognition. But hey, if you want to retract those arguments, no problem.

          • Ghazi

            Along with your spurious Pro-Chinese version of history, do you also believe the Chinese have the right to commit countless human rights abuses against the Tibetan people, including torture, beatings, mass murder, the destruction of religious monuments, the long-term imprisonment of political prisoners, suppression of religious freedom, forced relocation, the lethal shooting of unarmed Tibetans attempting to flee the country, and the banning of the Tibetan language in schools, etc?

            Or do you just limit yourself to trying to excuse and justify the original Chinese invasion and occupation of 1951?

          • Alex Dương

            There’s nothing spurious about the truth, Ghazi. Can you preferred sources reconcile the existence and use of the Golden Urn with the so-called apolitical “patron / priest” relationship? Will you admit that you were wrong and the Simla Accord never recognized Tibet as a “fully independent country”? Will you back off from your passport and U.N. GA debate arguments, or will you keep vacillating between them and “it doesn’t matter”?

            My guess is no, no, and no.

            As for your loaded question, no, I do not support CCP oppression of personal and political freedoms for PRC citizens. Rather, I’m against lies being pushed as facts.

          • Ghazi

            The truth? You wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you across the face.

          • Alex Dương

            And with that, I take it our “discussion” is over. Your attitude toward facts is much closer to the CCP’s than you care to admit. But that’s none of my business.

          • takasar1

            they kind of do. ultimately one could even argue that caesar was african.

            at the end of the day, it depends how you define ‘chinese’. seeing as his grandson himself brought him into the imperial line and historians ever since have been forced to write about him

          • Ghazi

            How can he have been brought into the Imperial line when he never ruled China?

            As for Caeser being African, I’m on the edge of my seat waiting for you to elaborate on that one.

          • takasar1

            Because his grandson did. And as per imperial tradition, the immediate ancestors of Kublai were bought into the line.

            Because Caesar, as with all humans, can likely trace his earliest ancestor to a place in Africa. Hope you get the point….

        • Scilyvié

          Yeah, Khan may have not personally ruled Yuan, but he started the campaign to do so, and without his efforts, Yuan most likely wouldn’t exist.
          Same thing with the first ruler of Qing, he died before Qing empire officially came into existence, but why was he hailed as the first Emperor of Qing? OUT OF RESPECT.
          It was Khan’s descendants who wrote him into the historical records as a founder of Yuan, and yes, it was to honour him.
          I never said that Qing had anything to do with Yuan, I only said the during the Qing dynasty, the Manchurian-Mongolian relations were tight, much tighter than the Manchu-Han relation. So tight in fact, that the belief that Manchurian and Mongolians were one family was the sentiment then, and was also why they were incorporated into Qing, – also known as China. This was also to explain why Mongols and Manchus can be considered Chinese.
          Now the Chinese idiots who claim the Khan was a Chinese Ruler, but refuses to acknowledge that he was a Mongolian, first, are just an idiots who don’t know history. Bear with him, every country has those.
          Anyone educated enough knows that the Khan was a Mongolian, who was the founder of Yuan, a dynasty which ruled China. Hence making him a Mongolian ruler of China (even if he didn’t actually rule).
          He is considered Chinese ruler because he was responsible to the Yuan – i.e. the Chinese ruler who was Mongolian. Just like how the Chinese Ruler of Qing was Manchurian.
          To put is simply: They are claiming him as a ruler out of respect, – in a way it legitimatized the Mongol rule of China, by accepting it as a Chinese Dynasty rather than a period of foreign occupation.

    • Insomnicide

      Actually many Chinese people mock the Chinese government and education system for attempting to portray Genghis Khan as a Chinese leader, but the government responds by claiming people who disagree are clearly Han chauvinist and dispruting racial-ethnic harmony.

  • Realist

    For pete’s sake, shut up Ryan. Go find a hobby and stop your obsession with cultures that have nothing to do with you. Can’t understand the Chinese? Good, don’t try to; your job is just to understand Canada. “A million, no, a BILLION” LOL you sound like you’re in grade school. Your words are empty and weightless here. You are a citizen of a nation with no ambition and and no desire; it’s entire personality is shaped on being the friendly follower of a liege, the US; your morals/critique/advice are meaningless to an aspiring superpower, one of the 3 mightiest nations in the world (by economy and military). Do you know how many disgusting things a nation has to do to become great? America was founded on slaughtering all of the natives. China was built on conquering and uniting all all bordering nations. Russia… LOL well, how big did Russia start out, and how big is it now? Safe to say it knows a thing or 2 about conquering LOL In my opinion, it’s best to embrace history, no matter what it is, and I mean embrace, not simply accept. I really don’t care that Japan wants to change its textbooks; every nation has a right teach its children facts and falsifications. It’s not wrong or right because in human history, the only wrong is weakness and the strong will always be right. It’s strategy for what’s best for the country and China will do whatever it sees fit to counter, as long as Japan poses itself as an obstacle to China, which it will continue to do unless/until it believes that the US is not strong enough for it to hide behind any longer. There is no good or evil, only strategy. Your nation’s goal/ambition/strategy is only to follow, so you can afford to have boy-scout morals as a follower only needs to be seen as kind and non-threatening. But those ideas are worthless to a nation that has real ambitions, because real ambitions ruffle feathers.

  • guest

    Doesn’t China do the same thing with their own history by blocking information in regards to the ’89 Tiananman Square massacre?

    • Alex Dương

      Yes. My question in response is, do you want to compare yourself to China if you’re Japan?

      • Ryan

        I don’t understand the confusion about this.
        China is MUCH worse than Japan when it comes to altering its history.
        So for Chinese people to show such anger at Japan for doing something THEY THEMSELVES are much worse at, is simply hypocrisy of the utmost degree.
        It’s like a murderer being OUTRAGED at somebody who simply committed assault.

        • Alex Dương

          So I take it you agree with Tom Cotton that since Iran hangs people for being gay, gays in the U.S. shouldn’t be complaining about discrimination? Because if you don’t, what’s the difference between your argument and his?

          • Ryan

            The comparable example is the people of Iran making an article that bashes America for how America treats homosexuals.
            It would be preposterous. And people would point out that the Iranians opinions were preposterous and hypocritical.
            Which is whats happening on this very thread.

          • Alex Dương

            It would be preposterous.

            Indeed.

            And people would point out that the Iranians opinions were preposterous and hypocritical. Which is whats happening on this very thread.

            No, the equivalent would be if people like you said it’s OK for gays to be discriminated in the U.S. because Iran is so much worse.

          • Ryan

            On a webpage called “iransmack”, an article shows Iranian people angry at America for their treatment of homosexuals.
            THAT’S the equivalent comparison.
            And the sane rational people posting on “iransmack” would point out the hypocrisy of the Iranian people.

          • Alex Dương

            You: Who cares if Japan whitewashes its history? China is so much worse.

            Tom Cotton: Who cares if gays are discriminated against in the U.S.? Iran is so much worse.

            Tell me, Ryan, what’s the difference between your position and Cotton’s?

          • Ryan

            I’m pointing out CHINESE hypocrisy on a site called CHINASMACK. They are outraged at Japan for something their country is MUCH worse about.
            THAT’S what’s happening.
            Psychotic comparisons to Tom Cotton and homosexual rights notwithstanding.

          • Alex Dương

            Yeah, I’m pointing out that your answer is fundamentally the same as Cotton’s answer.

            You: Who cares if Japan whitewashes its history? China is so much worse.

            Tom Cotton: Who cares if gays are discriminated against in the U.S.? Iran is so much worse.

          • Ryan

            You’re twisting and altering peoples arguments into things they didn’t say. A good propagandist strategy that works on the meek.

            I am not defending Japans alteration of history. Find one place where I did.
            By suggesting that I am in fact defending Japan is a textbook straw man argument orchestrated by people who are not interested in truth, but just in winning the argument.

            I’m simply pointing out Chinese hypocrisy in being outraged at another country for something their country is far worse about.

            My guess is that you’ve resorted to rhetoric and spin because your arguments have shown to not hold water.

          • Alex Dương

            Here’s your comment from earlier today:

            I’m so perplexed by all this…

            China has a FAR WORSE record when it comes to “being honest about history” than Japan does.

            A million times worse. A BILLION times worse.

            In fact, I’d say China is so much worse than Japan when it comes to “owning ones history” that I’d say it’s a number so high that man kind is unable to fathom it.

            At least Japan doesn’t flat out “censor” things, and make people “disappear” when they discuss it.

            The last part is instructive. You give Japan a pass because “at least” they don’t do what China does. Hey, sounds a lot like Tom Cotton saying it’s OK for gays to be discriminated against in the U.S. because at least we don’t hang them for being gay!

          • Ryan

            I think China’s government is far worse than Japans. I think China is far more guilty of altering history than Japan. As such, I think it is hypocritical for Chinese to be outraged at Japan for something their country is far worse about.
            THAT is my stance.

            Your straw man arguments notwithstanding.
            I fully expect spin, lies, and rhetoric as your response.

          • Alex Dương

            What straw man? I quoted you verbatim.

          • Ryan

            You quoted me verbatim, and then drew your OWN conclusions for what I meant.
            In case there is any confusion about my stance, I’ll do it again.

            I think China’s government is far worse than Japans. I think China is far more guilty of altering history than Japan. As such, I think it is hypocritical for Chinese to be outraged at Japan for something their country is far worse about.
            THAT is my stance.

          • Alex Dương

            So you retract the following portion of your comment?

            “At least Japan doesn’t flat out “censor” things, and make people “disappear” when they discuss it.”

          • Ryan

            It’s a direct part of my stance.

            I’ll write it again, and capitalize the part I’m referring to.

            I THINK CHINA’S GOVERNMENT IS FAR WORSE THAN JAPANS. I think China is far more guilty of altering history than Japan. As such, I think it is hypocritical for Chinese to be outraged at Japan for something their country is far worse about.THAT is my stance.

            I think you fully understand my stance, but have muddied the argument into semantics to distract from the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Eidolon

            Chinese are fully within their rights to be outraged at Japan’s history revisionism. You are fully within your rights to be outraged at Chinese history revisionism. There is no hypocrisy here – being outraged at A does not imply being equally outraged at B. For example, Americans are/were absolutely outraged 9/11. But not so much about random Muslim bombings in the Middle East in which only Muslims died.

            It’s only hypocrisy when the people who are outraged at Japanese history revisionism turn around and *support* Chinese history revisionism. But there is no evidence that is the case, only that they happen to care about Japanese history revisionism to a greater degree than their own country’s.

          • Alex Dương

            Yes, I do fully understand your stance. It’s the same as Tom Cotton’s lame argument that gays shouldn’t be complaining in the U.S. because hey, at least we aren’t hanging them for being gay, like Iran does.

    • shit religion

      Here we go again! You did it, I’ll do it too. You’re a racist, I’ll be racist too.

  • Xia

    Now, the rest of China is bashing Shanghai for being ‘Chinese traitors’ and buying Japanese products.

  • Xia

    In Europe, people tend to confront issues openly and are ready to forgive. They look at who exactly is guilty and don’t blame the descendants.

    But the Asian cultures are based on face. They regard things in terms of honor and shame. The Japanese will see it as a shame on their country and an insult on their ancestors, if they were to openly criticize their own WWII history. And the Chinese regard the shame of imperial Japanese soldiers being passed on to their descendants and want to see Japan humiliated in retribution.

    I neither expect Japan to show true remorse, nor China ready to forgive. The issue will just be forgotten one day, if ever, when everyone has gone tired of the same news stories popping up every year.

  • Xia

    Fred Fong has hacked into ChinaSmack under the ID ‘Amanda’, hahaha

  • Karze

    China always calls for other to confront history but when China is ask about its history of occupation of Tibet its has always one standard answers. China doesn’t want foreigners to interfere in China.

    • Alex Dương

      So Karze, which countries recognized Tibetan independence between 1912 and 1951?

      • Ghazi

        Tibet was indisputably an independent country before the 13th century.
        Tibet then came under Mongol domination several decades before the Mongols conquered China. During Tibet’s ‘Second Kingdom,’ from 1349 to 1642, Tibet was a secular state free of both Mongol and Chinese control.
        During the Qing Dynasty until 1911, Chinese troops were garrisoned in Tibet as part of a protectorate “priest-patron” relationship but the Tibetans continued to rule themselves. The Nationalist Government of China attempted to unilaterally assert control over Tibet until 1918 and again beginning in 1931, but was unsuccessful. Tibet expelled the last remaining Chinese representatives in 1949.
        As recently as 1914, a treaty was signed by Britain, China and Tibet that formally recognized Tibet as a fully independent country and demarcated Tibet’s borders. The 17-Point Agreement of 1951, which the People’s Republic of China (PRC) claims resolved Tibet’s status, was signed under the threat of violence and is not considered legally valid.

        • Alex Dương

          During the Qing Dynasty until 1911, Chinese troops were garrisoned in Tibet as part of a protectorate “priest-patron” relationship but the Tibetans continued to rule themselves.

          The patron-priest relationship claim is a recent argument from Tibetan exiles. Sperling, who nonetheless agrees that Tibet was a Chinese vassal state, argues that vassalage and “complete political domination” can coexist.

          • Ghazi

            Also, in 1959 and 1960 the ‘International Commission of Jurists’ concluded that Tibet had been independent between 1913 and 1950.

          • Alex Dương

            So the ICJ is a country?

          • Ghazi

            The international status of a country must be determined by objective legal criteria rather than subjective political ones.

          • Alex Dương

            That’s very convenient to say after the fact. It remains that between 1912 and 1951, no country recognized Tibetan independence. But many could easily have done so. China was very weak back then; nobody cared if China protested.

          • Ghazi

            It’s not only convenient, but it also happens to be a fact. Whether a particular entity is a state in international law depends on whether it possesses the necessary criteria for statehood (territory, population, independent government, ability to conduct international relations), not whether governments of other states recognize its independent status.
            China’s claim to sovereignty over Tibet is based almost exclusively on self-serving Chinese official histories. Chinese sources portrayed most countries with whom the emperor of China had relations, not only Tibet, as vassals of the emperor. This also applies to my previous comments re: Mongolia and Genghis Khan. Chinese school history books teach that Genghis Khan was a great Chinese leader. Firstly, Genghis Khan had been dead for 50 years before the beginning of the Yuan dynasty. Secondly, he never led China, or even so much as set foot inside it’s borders. And lastly, he wasn’t Chinese.
            As for Tibet, can you explain how they conquered China’s capital, Xi’an – the known as Changan – in 763, and exacted tribute from the Chinese, if they were a part of China?

          • Alex Dương

            China’s claim to sovereignty over Tibet is based almost exclusively on self-serving Chinese official histories.

            China’s claim to sovereignty is very simple: Tibet was a part of the Qing Empire; the Republic of China succeeded the Qing as per succession of states.

            As for Tibet, can you explain how they conquered China’s capital, Xi’an – the known as Changan – in 763, and exacted tribute from the Chinese, if they were a part of China?

            Straw man. I said Chinese claims to Tibet date back to the 18th Century, not the 8th Century.

          • Ghazi

            “Tibet was a part of the Qing Empire”.

            No it wasn’t. The Dalai Lama agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor during the Qing dynasty. He
            accepted patronage and protection in exchange. This “priest-patron” relationship, which the Dalai Lama also maintained with numerous Mongol Khans and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that existed between the Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing dynasty. If did not, in itself,affect Tibet’s independence.

          • Alex Dương
          • Ghazi

            So because Elliot Sperling disputes the historical record and supports the Chinese version of history, we must simply take his word for it?

          • Alex Dương

            Certainly not. But you’ll kindly note that Sperling is a third party academic unaffiliated with either the CCP or the TGiE. I invite you to cite another third party source showing evidence of the “patron-priest relationship.”

          • Ghazi

            As for Elliot Sperling’s assertion that ‘the Yuan dynasty made Tibet a part of China in the thirteenth century’, this is preposterous. The Yuan dynasty was a period of Mongol rule over China. So by your logic, Tibet belongs to Mongolia, not China.

            To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the PRC does, is absurd. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; no evidence exists to indicate that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or appended Tibet to China in any manner. It is like claiming that France should belong to England because both came under
            Roman domination, or that Burma became a part of India when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories.

          • Ghazi

            As for Elliot Sperling’s assertion that ‘the Yuan dynasty made Tibet a part of China in the thirteenth century’, this is preposterous.

            To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the PRC does, is absurd. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; no evidence
            exists to indicate that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or appended Tibet to China in any manner. It is like claiming that France should belong to England because both came under Roman domination, or that Burma became a part of India when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories.

          • Alex Dương

            Tibet was a part of the Yuan Empire. I don’t date Chinese claims back to the 13th Century, however, because Tibet was not a part of the Ming Empire.

          • Alex Dương

            Also,

            Chinese sources portrayed most countries with whom the emperor of China had relations, not only Tibet, as vassals of the emperor.

            Tibet was not a country between 1725 and 1912.

          • Ghazi

            Yes it was.

          • Alex Dương

            Name a country that recognized Tibet as independent between 1725 and 1912.

          • Ghazi

            Many countries made statements during the UN General Assembly debates that followed the invasion of Tibet that reflected their recognition of Tibet’s independent status. I.e, the delegate from the Philippines declared: “[I]t is clear that on the eve of the invasion in 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country.” The delegate from Thailand reminded the assembly that the majority of states “refute the contention that Tibet is part of China.” The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese “aggression” and “invasion” of Tibet.

          • Alex Dương

            And did Manila or Washington recognize Tibetan independence following those debates?

          • Ryan

            As YOU pointed out, Britain didn’t think China had the right to directly rule Tibet.
            So do you think citing international opinions is relevant or not?
            You’re picking and choosing again. It’s perfectly fine for you to cite international recognition WHEN IT HELPS YOUR ARGUMENT, but you dismiss it when i t’s against you.
            It’s a childish form of argumentation.

          • Alex Dương

            And Britain also didn’t recognize Tibetan independence.

        • Alex Dương

          As recently as 1914, a treaty was signed by Britain, China and Tibet that formally recognized Tibet as a fully independent country and demarcated Tibet’s borders. The 17-Point Agreement of 1951, which the People’s Republic of China (PRC) claims resolved Tibet’s status, was signed under the threat of violence and is not considered legally valid.

          You added this later. You are completely mistaken that the Simla Accord “formally recognized Tibet as a fully independent country”:

          The Governments of Great Britain and China recognizing that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China, and recognizing also the autonomy of Outer Tibet, engage to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa.

          The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province. The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet or any portion of it.

          “Tibet is under the suzerainty of China” does not mean “Tibet is a fully independent country.” To the contrary, it means that “Tibet is a Chinese vassal state.”

          You are also mistaken that the ROC signed the Simla Accord. Neither the ROC nor the PRC has ever accepted the Simla Accord. This was the root cause of China’s border disputes with India, as India inherited its borders with China from the Simla Accord signed by the U.K.

          • daz

            It’s ironic that when it’s all said and done with why anyone would give a shit about Tibet, i.e. to rape it for it’s resources, places like the UK and Australia will have no qualms with ‘helping out’. But, of course, the same countries can still be morally righteous about any Chinese intervention even though they are technically helping with the stealing and plundering of the same gold.

  • Alex Dương

    “At least Japan doesn’t flat out “censor” things, and make people “disappear” when they discuss it.”

    That sounds like giving Japan a pass. AKA who cares?

  • Alex Dương

    I doubt anybody really learns about Tibetan history in either U.S. or Canadian public schools. Ryan has obviously only bothered to read tracts from Free Tibet, the International Campaign for Tibet, etc. Even scholars who personally support Tibet, like Robert Barnett or Elliot Sperling, admit that much of what Tibetan exiles claim is not supported by the historical record.

  • Realist

    Yeah, well, this ain’t a perfect world. That’s why countries have militaries. In this imperfect world, nobody cares what you say unless you have the strength to make it happen. People from Afghanistan can protest all they want but all an American general has to do is give a signal and they all get gunned down. “42 hostile insurgents neutralized.” LOL Strength, or shut up. But I digress. He doesn’t have a relevant opinion because he’s not an involved party and has had no qualified invitations to be an arbitrator. I can yell out all day at the top of my lungs what President Obama should have on his birthday cake but nobody cares cus I’m not part of the party.

  • Ryan

    This is a site that specifically translates Chinese news and opinions into English for the sake of NON CHINESE to debate the issues.
    And here we are doing that, and realist is criticizing non Chinese debating these issues.
    I’m so confused. It’s actually making me nauseous. Realists stupidity has actually caused NAUSEA!!!!
    THAT’S how stupid his post is.

    • Guang Xiang

      Actually, I thought his post was pretty realistic

  • Dark Night

    China! you have the nuke. Just nuke these assholes, and write that it was a shooting star in your school text books.

    • vincent_t

      Now this is wrong but indeed very funny LOL

  • Realist

    http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/stephen-forgets-that-he-isnt-on-the-internet.jpg

    Oooh, an internet threat. You know those only come from the toughest people LOLOL

  • Nat

    Obviously the Japanese strategy is to keep on doing it until people (Chinese) get tired of complaining. Conversely, the Chinese (counter-)strategy is to keep on complaining until people (Japanese) get tired of them complaining. Everyone is tired of this except Japan and China, jeez.

    • meis

      Why you excluded the Koreans?

  • Eidolon

    He is considered an English king and his descendants are also considered English kings. Again, this isn’t about what ethnicity William was back when he conquered England. But it is about what modern nation-states consider their own heritage. The PRC isn’t saying Genghis was Chinese back when he conquered China. They’re saying he is a hero of the People’s Republic of China. There’s a difference.