|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Lyrt wrote: |
I��d like to thank Ulsanchris for his balanced intervention:
Lets be honest, the history of Japanese occupation in China and Korea was written when dictatorships controlled those countries. Dictatorships have never had a reputation for telling the truth. It is not unreasonable to suspect the claims made by these governments.
Japan is also suspect when it comes to telling the truth because they wants to deny what they have done.
IF you want the truth do your own investigation of whatever first hand sources you can find and make your conclusions based on that. |
Why didn't you have so much opposition to Ulsanchris's earlier remark which mirrored mine? That being this one from this very same thread,
| Quote: |
| THe Japanese did help modernize Korea however the Japanese occupation was not benevolent. They were hard and cruel occupiers who have little mercy for Koreans. |
Any difference between me and Ulsanchris here? I guess he did what he suggested others do in bold letters above(and what you approved), and arrived at the same conclusion as me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shakuhachi
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your disregard for the court is just disgraceful. The Judges that presided over that mock trial were highly respected in international circles. Excuse me having faith in the Hague's decision. That brings me to another point. You claim that Hague can not be used to describe the court. I have studied human rights law in depth and after having written many essays on the subject I can safely say that saying "The Hague" as a reference to the war crimes tribunal is not a problem at all when written in a legal context. |
Gwangjuboy, here I could not disagree with you more strongly.
The fact that the mock trial took place in The Hague does not mean it has the level of credibility of the international court of justice, or indeed any credibililty at all. Any sort of 'justice' which has a pre-determined verdict is not justice. Were the 'comfort women' cross examined? Many of them should have been because they have told stories that contradict even themselves.
It does not matter that the judges in that mock trial are 'respectable' or not. The only kind of 'justice' that could be achieved by such a body is only the level of a 'star chamber' or a kangaroo court.
Anyone could make a mock trial in The Hague and try to confuse people by making them think that the trial was sanctioned by the international court of justice, which was obviously the goal from the start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyrt
Joined: 26 May 2004
Location: Somewhere in France
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basically because it didn��t add anything to what you were stating and because I clearly stated what my position was. My agreeing with that part of his intervention doesn��t mean I agree with everything he said, like you certainly noticed.
You recognized that the colonial period was not just about economic considerations in previous threads and I clearly pointed out sources (you didn��t care reading) supporting my claims. So I send you back to the part you agreed colonial rule was globally good even regardless of economic considerations. In fact you��re playing two sides of the coin:
1 I agree colonial rule was good
2 No, although there was economic growth Korean did not share it
3 (when shown improvements), I never said Korean did not share economic improvement
4 Well, ok, there were good points but there were a lot of bad points either (that we never contested)
5 (When shown earlier claims stating colonial rule was good) I never denied economic improvement (when it is more than economic improvement that he agreed with)
6 Well, actually I was playing devil��s advocate
7 Wow we have the same opinion, I win! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulsanchris
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: take a wild guess
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've never done any research of first hand sources for korean history. I've only read one history book on korea, so i am hardly an authority on it. the book I read did mention things like the number of arrests made each year. It presented other data from first hand sources that showed Japanese rule was not benevolent.
If you ask me the question: do I think it is possible that korea falsfied or exaggerated Japanese atrociates? Then, yes, I do think that this is possible.
Was life all that great for the common person before the Japanese annexed korea? No, it wasn't. There is no way a person could argue that it was. What would be interesting would be to compare the amount arrests before and after Japanese occupation and compare types of punishments used for similar crimes. try to find out if the Japanese was that much harsher then the koreans were. I'm not sure that there would be too much of a difference between the two. It would also be interesting to compare crime rates and punishments between Japan and Korea during the time of occupation. Without knowing how these factors compare to each other then it is hard to know just how bad (or good) the Japanese occupation was.
One point I will raise again that injustices committed against you by your own people never seem as bad as injustices committed against you by other people. Especially by a people that have been traditional enemies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shakuhachi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Your disregard for the court is just disgraceful. The Judges that presided over that mock trial were highly respected in international circles. Excuse me having faith in the Hague's decision. That brings me to another point. You claim that Hague can not be used to describe the court. I have studied human rights law in depth and after having written many essays on the subject I can safely say that saying "The Hague" as a reference to the war crimes tribunal is not a problem at all when written in a legal context. |
Gwangjuboy, here I could not disagree with you more strongly.
The fact that the mock trial took place in The Hague does not mean it has the level of credibility of the international court of justice, or indeed any credibililty at all. Any sort of 'justice' which has a pre-determined verdict is not justice. Were the 'comfort women' cross examined? Many of them should have been because they have told stories that contradict even themselves.. |
Hey Shaks, nice to see you back in this  I have read the method the court used to come to it's conclusions. The Judges questioned the comfort women, and Japanese war veterans. Apparently the Japanese and the US(primarily because the US incurred the wrath of the tribunal too for failing to deal with this issue in the aftermath of WW2) refused to recognise the court's legitimacy and so far I have been unable to establish whether or not the women were cross examined by a defence. It is quite possible that there wasn't a defence because of Japan's refusal to represent itself at the tribunal. It might be possible that Japan was assigned a defence in the same way that Milosevic was at the Hague when he refused to recognise the ICTY. I will let you know when I have found out which is the case. If there was evidence that could knock the credibility of the comfort women I would have expected the Japanese government to present it at the tribunal. I am not sure whether you were going so far as to attack the judges' international standing so I won't go into that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lyrt wrote: |
Basically because it didn��t add anything to what you were stating and because I clearly stated what my position was. My agreeing with that part of his intervention doesn��t mean I agree with everything he said, like you certainly noticed.
You recognized that the colonial period was not just about economic considerations in previous threads and I clearly pointed out sources (you didn��t care reading) supporting my claims. So I send you back to the part you agreed colonial rule was globally good even regardless of economic considerations. In fact you��re playing two sides of the coin:
1 I agree colonial rule was good
2 No, although there was economic growth Korean did not share it
3 (when shown improvements), I never said Korean did not share economic improvement
4 Well, ok, there were good points but there were a lot of bad points either (that we never contested)
5 (When shown earlier claims stating colonial rule was good) I never denied economic improvement (when it is more than economic improvement that he agreed with)
6 Well, actually I was playing devil��s advocate
7 Wow we have the same opinion, I win! |
Yes I am playing two sides of the coin! Collect your bonus points! Colonial rule in Korea saw improvements for Koreans, but Koreans were still discriminated against and paid less than their Japanese counterparts. The improvements that Koreans saw were probably soured by this, especially considering that the Japanese were foreigners. Shock horror! If you turn the coin over completely then you can argue that the undoubted abuses(the comfort women for example) that took place against Koreans at the hands of the Japanese marred Japan's positive influences in Korea. Wow! There happens to be another side to the arguement! I did read your sources too. Very good, and informative. I didn't criticise them because for the most part I didn't have a problem with what they were saying.
I do have a problem with Koreans who attempt to distort the truth in relation to Japanese abuses, and also those Koreans who have consumed the mythical image of their monarchs without question. That's unacceptable, and that other thread demonstrated how far I was prepared to go in order to shake them out of it. Equally, I have a problem with Japanese people who believe that their positive economic influences, give them the right to bury dubious parts of their history. There is no doubt that attrocities took place at the hands of the Japanese. The exaggeration of those attrocities is worthy of heavy condemnation, but let us not forget that they took place.
Anyway, I am in Japan in a couple of weeks. If you happen to be there how about a beer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| I refered to the court as a "mock trial" trial if I remember correctly. Where did you learn to practice this style of debating? To say in this context that this court has no legal standing implies that I said it did! Gord, the capital of England is London! Your disregard for the court is just disgraceful. The Judges that presided over that mock trial were highly respected in international circles. Excuse me having faith in the Hague's decision. That brings me to another point. You claim that Hague can not be used to describe the court. I have studied human rights law in depth and after having written many essays on the subject I can safely say that saying "The Hague" as a reference to the war crimes tribunal is not a problem at all when written in a legal context. |
I simply, and correctly, noted that the city name is "The Hague" and that the advocacy group was simply releasing their findings in the city "The Hague" to try and confuse people into thinking it was the court in The Hauge. You will note that in the very quote of mine you have here, I simply said that "The Hague" was a city name.
Even now, you refer to "The Hauge" as being a court and that this court had something to do with this decision. No, the Court of The Hague had nothing to do with this advocacy group / tribunal.
It was an advocacy group that decided before hand what the verdict was going to be and then pretended in media reports to have been a legal trial.
| Quote: |
| Classic, arrogant Gord in all his glory. How dare anyone say anything he disagrees with (including distinguished judges!). To argue that I am boosting my post count shows the depths to which you will sink in a bid to discredit me. And all because you can't get over the double jeopardy thread in which I educated you. |
You're reading something into this that is not there. I have played devil's advocate on a number of issues I knew jack about before I stepped up to discuss it and did most (if not all) once the thread caught my attention. The point being that I don't have a problem with that as long as the person is making an informed posting instead of just saying "I disagree" to run up a post count. I no more suggested that you were running up a post count than you were trying to make an informed position known.
| Quote: |
| They were the good old days. You gave my post the red pen treatment which included a mark against the word "doubtless". You claimed it was incorrect, and attempted to discredit me. Little do you know but one poster sent me a PM letting me know that you had been whipped the moment the Webster's dictionary, and the editor of the Oxford English dictionary agreed with me. Great times. |
Great. A thread many moons ago. I know this great new game called "Pogs", you want to play?
| Quote: |
| That's nice Gord because I don't think I ever threw the figure of 200,000 around. I just kept saying that it happened and that a mock trial agreed. In response your pal Kyrt kept throwing statistics around that I hadn't argued with! As you have just said it happened too, I welcome you to the winning side! Glad to have you on the team. |
By the same mock trial, the U.S. has made sex slaves thanks to the prison issues in Iraq. They better set up a multi-trillion dollar trust fund and apologize to everyone forever as some people were turned into slaves.
Here is another part of the problem: Many Korean women were prostitutes, including a number of women who were set up by their own families. Colonization ends, suddenly everyone claims "oh, I was a slave!" and this had nothing to do with the revenge killings by Koreans going on now that it was suddenly cool to hate Japan.
Continuing on with the issue. Some people were slaves, the evidence shows most were not. Of the ones that were, who made the orders? At the time the Japanese military pretty much ran their own affairs. Imagine if the Pentagon deciding they would invade someone on their own. So instead of asking for permission to attack, they would send a memo stating that they took over a small country and would like to know if the government has any requests on what they should do with it.
Which brings us to the women. Where the few that were made into slaves a product of the government or of the military. If it was the military and they ran their owns affairs, how does that tie in to the government liability? Etc. All very complicated which seem to be unaware of during the devil's advocate claim.
As you are not aware of what you are trying to claim, I can not yet be on your team.
| Quote: |
| Is this a condemnation of the war crimes trial in the Hague? A distinguished panel of international judges came to the conclusion that the Japanese enslaved women and forced them to have sex with their soldiers. After reading memos from the Japanese War Ministry, hearing evidence from women from a wide range of countries (some as young as 12 at the time, including evidence that victim's parents were murdered before the enslavement began), and even hearing evidence from Japanese war veterens the court arrived at its conclusion. I accept it because I have faith in distinguished judges. Maybe you should start spamming the judges with your sources and educate them! |
I'm saying that the advocacy group, "The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal", is a self-appointed group which has no judicial authority. It wasn't a trial but rather a which hunt. There was no need to cross-examine anything as that might reduce the value of the evidence! Sure, many witnesses would be nice but a few who made claims that were not corroborated is good enough.
Show-trials in tinpot dictarships presented a better image of credibility than what we are talking about here.
| Quote: |
| Finally, as I have acknowledged the backwardness of the YI dynasty, the economic progress that took place under Japanese colonial rule, and the increase in literacy rates, are we on the same team here? It seems that you agree with me thus far, but when I say this success was marred by human rights abuses you get argumentative. As you have acknowledged that the Japanese did enslave women for sexual purposes I can only reiterate my previous remark. WELCOME TO THE TEAM BOB! |
Define "the Japanese". Was it a government order? Was it a local event? Was it a military issue? If one person on the government payroll has a slave, then the U.S. is guilty of the same crimes in Iraq. Things have to be put into perspective.
That being it is very unlikely (and the evidence does not support) claims that the Japanese central government conscripted hundreds of thousands of women into being sex slaves. Especially ironic, given that Japanese prostitutes used to come to Korea to work as Korean women were often viewed as being dirtier thus less desirable for Japanese men to sleep with. As a result, Korean prostitutes made less money than their Japanese co-workers. Good times, good times.
Of the women who were simply prostitutes and have dipped into the money Japan put up to compensate people who claimed they were slaves, should we pursue them with fraud charges and a slander case for falsely claiming they were slaves? Things just keep going from crazy to weird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fidel
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Location: North Shore NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before the war, the population of Nanjing hovered around one million. After the war broke out, people began to flee, but only the high officials and the wealthy had the means to escape to far-off places. The commoners could, at best, flee to neighboring areas to escape temporarily from the war. There was also a steady flow of refugees fleeing into Nanjing from the front lines, so the population of the city was still quite large. While many were able to find refuge in the safety zone , many others, especially the weak, infirm and those who choose to stay behind and protect their businesses stayed in the city proper. Thousands of others attempted to leave the city, ahead of the advancing army, but were often thwarted by physical barriers, such as locked gates and rivers. Thousands were trapped by the Yangzte river as the KMT army had already taken all available craft to make good their mistake, leaving the civilians to face the Japanese.
| Quote: |
| It is only recently that some, like you, accepted the ��hundreds of thousands��. I recap. So far most of historians have stated that the casualties were 42 000 (or ��thousands��, or less), based on burial records |
.
On the contary, it is only recently that some Japanese and people such as yourself have sought to revise the figures and to minimalise the atrocity.
The historians that you refer to are by and large Japanese, who, supported by governmental funding have sought to revise their brutal past to make it more palatable. Several organisations have been expressely created to sanatize Japan's twentieth century attempt at empire building. In fact, I can safely say that most historians point to a figure in the hundred's of thousands.
| Quote: |
| The 300 000 lacking bodies can��t have disappeared like that, there were no facilities to dispose of them, or you have to show me evidences of portable crematoriums carried by the Japanese army |
.
The Japanese weren't stupid. Like all vicious aggressors, they knew that their actions wouldn't be seen in a favorable light to the rest of the world. Take a look at other conflicts where brutality and the murder of civilians was widespread. Take Germany during WW2, the breakup of the old Yugoslavian Republic, The USSR during and post WW2, China's Cultural Revolution, Cambodia's Pol Pot Regime. All of these governments/militaries took measures to cover up the extent of their crimes. From the sophisticated systematic methods employed by the Nazi's, to the crude yet effective methods shown by the Serbians, Croations and Bosnians, who simply buried murdered civilians in huge pits, or disposed of their bodies in waterways. Eyewitness reports, and later investigations, found that the Japanese utilised the latter methods. Civilians were driven towards the Yangzte River and shot in large numbers. Many others were simply herded out of the city and disposed of in more remote locations.
| Quote: |
| They forced the fleeing refugees to a nearby beach and gathered them together. Dozens of machine guns were set up and the refugees were shot to death. Some of the corpses were just left to float away along the river, creating a blood-red tide. Other corpses were piled up on the beach and left to rot in the falling rain and hot sun. No one bothered to do anything about the decaying corpses until the end of spring or the beginning of summer of the next year, even though the foul stench spread for miles and miles around |
.
I suggest you evaluate the type of 'evidence' that you are referencing. The contradications to the accepted historical events surrounding what happened in and around Nanjing are by and large as a result of the attempts by Japanese 'historians' to blur reality. Some unfortunates, such as yourself, have been taken in by their propoganda and seek to spread their gospel like a modern day evangelist. I suggest that instead of accepting the Japanese version as truth, and rubbishing international versions, you evaluate the subject with a more open mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| phidel wrote: |
| I like to talk a lolt and claim a lot of things. I also like to nay-say evidence from people who know far more than I do simply because it is inconvient to my stated position. When faced with evidence tossed in my face, I like to insult people as being ignorant of how things are and insult their position because it dares to be contrary to mine. |
Your lack of evidence in support of your claims, while dismissing the evidence of others who know than you do, is disturbing and casts a long shadow over your claims. This shadow is further darkened by your decision to spend the majority of your latest posting as being a mix of unsupported conspiracy theories and insults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't have a dog's bone in this argument, but making up quotes and assigning them to other posters sure doesn't do your cause any good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fidel
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Location: North Shore NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are you babbling about Gord?
Making up quotes and attributing them to people who disagree with you is a weak form of submission. By an ironic twist, it does however describe you perfectly. I can only gather that it's a form of self-criticism disguised as wit? Mis-spelling of my nom-de-plume is another coup for you I'm sure. "But I didn't misquote Fidel, see I spelt it Phidel." Your greasy face must be beaming with excitement with that master stroke. Hahaha, what a muppet!
By the way, the last quote in my last post is not attributed to any poster. It's a quote from a book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't have a dog's bone in this argument, but making up quotes and assigning them to other posters sure doesn't do your cause any good.
|
In fairness, it should be pretty obvious to anyone that Gord's "quote" wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
Like Kiwiboy, I'm more of less neutral in this debate. Though I'd be interested in hearing back from Gord about how he knows the 1919 uprising was merely an attempt to establish a Christian theocracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maneatinghorse
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| phidel wrote: |
| I like to talk a lolt and claim a lot of things. I also like to nay-say evidence from people who know far more than I do simply because it is inconvient to my stated position. When faced with evidence tossed in my face, I like to insult people as being ignorant of how things are and insult their position because it dares to be contrary to mine. |
Your lack of evidence in support of your claims, while dismissing the evidence of others who know than you do, is disturbing and casts a long shadow over your claims. This shadow is further darkened by your decision to spend the majority of your latest posting as being a mix of unsupported conspiracy theories and insults. |
Seems to me Gord.... you have not provided any credible evidence either. Except for a few questionable books and links written by ultra-nationalistic Japanese.
Christian Theocracy comment was just a joke. Please provide us with some "real" evidence to suggest that 1919 movement was all about establishing some Christian Theocracy. To the understanding of most people, I believe 1919 movement was about 2 million Koreans protesting against the brutal Japanese rule and the declaration of independence.
Last edited by maneatinghorse on Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, lets not yet Gord of the hook on this one. He has already disputed the three sources I refered to which claim that 7500 people were killed that day. His only offering was a newspaper article. He claimed 1200 were killed yet when I performed the much heralded google search here is what came up!
http://www.google.co.kr/search?q=1200+killed+Korea+March+1st&ie=UTF-8&hl=ko&lr=
Zilch!!!!
By the way Gord, be prepared for more ass kickings later when I reveal sources by Japanese academics who substantiate the findings of the tribunal I have already refered to. Some juicy tit bits at Harvard Uni showing how the HNK have censored debate about the Japanese attrocities too. Great stuff and I'll post it later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
Yes, lets not yet Gord of the hook on this one. He has already disputed the three sources I refered to which claim that 7500 people were killed that day. His only offering was a newspaper article. He claimed 1200 were killed yet when I performed the much heralded google search here is what came up!
http://www.google.co.kr/search?q=1200+killed+Korea+March+1st&ie=UTF-8&hl=ko&lr=
Zilch!!!! |
I see, though I have no time to go through the several thousand links that come up to see if what you say is true. Perhaps if you expanded your search a bit and included other languages such as Japanese or... Russian? You might have noted that the piece I linked to before was from a Russian author, Andrei Lankov, who has written quite substantially about Korea. Though you would have to be able to read Russian, as his books like "Severnaia Koreia: vchera i segodnia" (North Korea: Yesterday and Today) are written in Russian. He's a guy who has published many, many books and papers. He has already forgotton more than you will ever learn about Korea's history. He at least tries to back up his numbers with facts instead of reporting "7500 dead because we say so!"
Anything else that you would like to suggest I have just made up?
| Quote: |
| By the way Gord, be prepared for more ass kickings later when I reveal sources by Japanese academics who substantiate the findings of the tribunal I have already refered to. Some juicy tit bits at Harvard Uni showing how the HNK have censored debate about the Japanese attrocities too. Great stuff and I'll post it later. |
I'll get you next time Gadget, next time!
Though I'm just here on a voyage of discovery. I welcome valid data and evidence, and have never suggested otherwise. What I have contested are people who make claims but cite no actual evidence. The classic example: Last night, NK invaded. But I ran up to the DMZ and held the line. By myself no less. It must be true, we are all still here, aren't we?
Hell, if every thread was awash in actual evidence and logic, we would have a lot fewer postings Fidel's where he runs with a conspiracy theory and says that evidence showing it must be true is the lack of evidence, logistics and physics be damned, and then calls us names for not following along.
Much like the Though Police who save us from Kim's denoggizing video, I welcome the Fact Police to rule over us and look forward to a brighter tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
