Korean Job Discussion Forums

[stevemcgarrett]

Ilsanman wrote:

[Freaka]

[Ilsanman]

Yes, but I didn't want to be accused of overgeneralizing. Better to undergeneralize.

And Steve McGarrett, we have not always seen eye to eye on everything, but I acknowledge that you argue and debate points in a calm and intelligent manner. I can respect that.

[Freaka]

[jinju]

[jinju]

[cbclark4]

My only problem with the Nanjing claim against Japan is that China doesn't acknowledge it's own doing in the forced famines post WWII.

But then where is the nation that can claim complete innocence from atrocities.

[Freaka]

[jinju]

[Freaka]

[Alyallen]

[Guri Guy]

In my opinion there was a massacre in Nanjing. Innocent civilians died. I won't deny that and won't respect anyone that says the Japanese were innocent. A lot of people seem to automatically think that I will defend the Japanese over anything. Sorry to disappoint but I won't. I do not support the massacre of Okinawans in 1945. I do not support the massacre of Koreans after the Earthquake in Japan in 1923. I do not support the use of slave labour in WW2. There are many things I do not like. It's easier to assume that I am a racist that blindly supports Japan in any way shape or form though isn't it?


I think what the Japanese are doing here (well the 100 or so politicans anyway) are questioning the validity of the historical record. For example, Nanjing was razed to the ground. Who did this? It is automatically assumed that the Japanese did it? Why? Because the Japanese are evil. Nothing to do with China's scorched earth policy in the war. Did Chinese soldiers abandon their posts and blend in with the civilian population and later resist the Japanese? This could possibly explain the deaths of a fair number of "civilians". Not saying it's the truth but it should be looked into with a Non-Nationalistic point of view and that includes both Japan and China. A neutral viewpoint would be preferred. I think my first link provided a fairly objective point of view.
These questions should be addressed I think and demonizing the Japanese for doing so is not helpful.
Although the Massacre has been researched by the Japanese, Chinese and Western countries, it is a complex issue. Here is a good take on it. I agree with what is said here.
Please read:

Japan: A new assertiveness in dealing with international criticism

This year is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese full-scale war of aggression against China. At a time such as this, we should redouble our efforts to act in accordance with the spirit of �using history as a lesson as we look to the future�, learn from history, treasure the peace that was gained through such hardships, and value our wonderful lives today. Also, we should maintain a good tone for improving and developing Sino-Japanese relations, and work together to make progress for creating goodwill among future generations in both countries. I believe there will be commemorative events to mark this anniversary.

As I�ve pointed out before, no one should be under any illusions that the Chinese are willing to let bygones be bygones, despite peaceful Japanese postwar behavior and the enormous amount of Japanese ODA bestowed on China since the restoration of diplomatic relations. Former CP Secretary-General Jiang Zemin told China�s diplomatic corps in a 1998 speech, �We should always emphasize the historical problems with Japan. We must continue to make this an issue for eternity.�

And, as other Japanese reports indicate, not only will the Chinese insist on keeping the photographs in place, they�re actually expanding the exhibit at the museum memorializing the Marco Polo Bridge incident.

Of course the Japanese aren�t fooled by any of this�they�ve seen and heard it all many times before. In one sense, this growing Japanese assertiveness in challenging anti-Japanese activities overseas is a positive development, regardless of where the truth lies. By actively confronting their antagonists, the Japanese are in effect saying, �Put up or shut up,� thereby forcing them to present hard, irrefutable evidence. (And it�s going to have to be better than that presented in the House subcommittee.)

That in turn will require those Japanese who object to the activities of their overseas antagonists to present their own evidence. The Japanese who deny the Nanjing Massacre and government coercion of comfort women will be forced to put their own cards on the table.

One would think that China, South Korea, and some elements in the U.S. Congress would welcome this new Japanese approach and actively engage them. Now that they have walked out into the open ground, it makes them a lot easier to hit as targets. If they really are massacre/comfort women deniers, what better opportunity to definitively discredit their position?

Further, if both sides deal with the issue seriously and not as diplomatic gamesmanship, something approaching the truth is bound to emerge. But of course, this also has the potential to degenerate into what the Japanese call a mizukakeron, or water-throwing argument�in other words, an exercise in futility.

At the top of this website is a link to my translation of an article written by Prof. Masao Shimojo about the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute between Japan and Korea. Prof. Shimojo suggests the only way to resolve the dispute is for historians from both countries to meet in good faith and settle the truth of the matter once and for all. Sounds like a good idea, doesn�t it?

But Japanese and Korean historians have already held joint meetings to discuss Japan�s treatment of wartime issues in some of its textbooks. Those meetings broke down because the Koreans insisted the Japanese government pay indemnity to individuals.

Was that due to Japanese intransigence and a desire to avoid responsibility? Not at all�it was due to the Japanese insistence that the Koreans honor the treaty they signed in 1965. As part of the agreement, the Japanese paid South Korea roughly 800 million dollars in reparations. For their part, the Korean government renounced the right of its citizens to make individual claims.

The only conclusion to be drawn from the Korean example is that the Koreans are more interested in gouging the Japanese than gauging the truth.

Could Sino-Japanese discussions about wartime behavior be fruitful? Well, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman claimed that China doesn�t conduct anti-Japanese education. It might be difficult for a neutral observer to give credence to that claim after reading this account by AFP�s Benjamin Morgan of the history lessons taught in Chinese classrooms. (In addition, I have seen Japanese websites documenting what they claim are false descriptions of wartime photographs by the Chinese, and their arguments seemed to have merit.) And as Morgan points out, the Chinese are rather less than forthcoming in textbooks about their own history than the Japanese are in theirs.

Given the statements of Mr. Jiang and the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the sheer number of those wartime �museums�, and the continuing need of the Chinese government to deflect popular dissatisfaction by demonizing the Japanese�70 years after the fact�it is reasonable to conclude that the Chinese aren�t very interested in the ultimate truth, either.

Perhaps the Chinese government should do more than pay lip service to the public statements of its leaders:

�Only a country that respects history, takes responsibility for history and wins over the trust of peoples in Asia and the world at large can take greater responsibilities in the international community.�

�Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, New Delhi, April 12, 2005

http://ampontan.wordpress.com/

[The Bobster]

[The Bobster]

[Guri Guy]

I am aware that reading apparently is boring to you Bobster. Your b*tching about my "cut and pasting" is frankly stupid. What does it matter if I embed it in my post or give a link? You won't read either let alone have an objective mind about it.

Anyway, I have stated my opinion already. Let's have that "converstaion" that you want. However, if you want to keep being sarcastic and try to score cheap debating points on things that have nothing to do with the topic, I won't waste my time. Have a good day.