Forum - View topicNEWS: Politically-charged Manga Suspended in Japan
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ranmah
 Posts: 294 Location: Stomp'n on Tokyo Tower |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It has to do with how the Japanese Govenment treated the Korean Population. They killed countless civilans in a March 1919 peaceful protest against the government. They assinated the Empress because she was siding with the Russians and not the Japanese. The soliders raped countless women and called them "Comfort Women." Even korean marathon runners put their head down in shame after they won Gold for Japan. I have nothing against my generation of Japanese. I do have a beef with the older Japanese who were there and still did not appologize.
Money is not the issue. It is that Japan admitted what it did in Korean, Nanking, the Phillipeans, and other Asian countries was wrong. I'm sorry if this is way off topic. I just had to get it off of my system. Koreans living abroad and in Korea have the same view as me. I don't think this will ever go away until the Japanese Government says what it did was wrong. Ranmah Last edited by Ranmah on Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
fractured78
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's simply a difference of opinion here. Had this been an academic work or a report in a periodical I would absolutely understand the outcry. Being a work of fiction, however, in a genre/medium that often uses pictures out of context as baselines for drawings for a manga, I absolutely disagree with you. Such outcry was both uncalled for it and should have been ignored. There are no facts to debate here, only a difference of opinion. We disagree and that's about all there is to it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15695 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai:
Perhaps, but if you acknowledge and recognize the wrongness of such an action, then it still makes you better than the oppressor who does the same thing, but doesn't acknowledge or recognize their actions.
Because by personalizing their crimes, the Nazis and Japanese were able to diminish the lives ruined and/or lost to their actions, while the Allies recognized the lives lost for the greater good, and thus learned from the experience by attempting to confine bombing to non-civilian targets. It still hasn't worked, but at least they're trying.
They didn't "deserve" to be bombed, but they put themselves in a position where they were going to be hurt eventually.
Again, it's not really the same situation, since the Cheyenne didn't support a totalitarian imperialistic regime which had no respect for human rights. By your logic, Hitler deserved to be labelled a refugee, because he hid in a bunker.
Austria-Hungary wasn't that much different from Britain or France at the time. enjin:
The thing is that there are "scholars"-including Mel Gibson's a-hole of a dad-who question the Holocaust too. They say that it's "scientifically impossible" to gas that many Jews. And while their arguments might sound more professional and legitimate than what you hear on the street or in the media, they don't have any factual basis for discrediting the Holocaust. And I'm sure the sources you use for Nanking are the same. mohawk + abunai:
These are people's lives, not snuff! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
fractured78
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sorry about the his. I'm not faimiliar with the name enjin. I think you've distorted my perspective on "taking responsibility" totally out of whack. My perspective is this: 1. Full acknowledgement by the Japanese about what they did during WWII. If there is disagreement open academic and diplomatic channels to solve such disagreements. (IE-send researchers, academics, bring evidence to the light of critical review.) 2. Formally apologize to the parties offended. 3. Teach younger generations about what happened. So far both 1 and 2 have not occurred, and I'm not sure how complete Japan has been on #3. That's up for debate, but, considering how many academics both in Japan and abroad have raised objections...I'd guess #3 has not been done very well. As far as my use of the "Rape of Nanking" and your objection as to to it not being the "official historical name." Let me say this: history does not have "official names" only those that are commonly used. "Rape of Nanking" is commonly used in America. I'm actually somewhat surprised by how much this bothers you. If someone chose to refer to the United States's expansion west as "the murder of a hundred nations" I wouldn't really care. It's a pretty accurate description. As is the Rape of Nanking. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmm. Your argument, then, is that a murderer who knows that what he is doing is wrong, is morally "better" than a murderer who can't tell right from wrong? I should say it would be the other way around.
Same argument as before - and same response. And might I point out that when we're talking about the firebombing of Dresden, "attempting to confine bombing to non-civilian targets" was the exact opposite of the mission objective. And I don't see that the Allies learned from it, at all. Like the Japanese massacre and violation of the civilians of Nanking, the Allied firebombings (in Germany and Japan) were deliberate actions, decided at the highest levels of government, targeting civilians. Whether one thinks of the civilians as "innocent" or not (and, after all, who's innocent in a war?), the fact remains that they were civilians, and should not have been subject to terror tactics. Civilians are not legitimate targets.
That's sophistry - saying that doesn't change the fact that the Allies made the civilians targets, not incidental casualties.
A civilian is a civilian. Once you start saying that "some civilians are bad civilians, and deserve what they get", then you've chucked all civilised considerations out the window.
That response displays a fair bit of ignorance about WW1 and the political situation in Europe just prior to that war. So far, your record on this isn't very good. You've shown that your general knowledge of history (both political and military) is sketchy, at best. Get your act together. If you're going to debate me, check your facts and get informed, before posting. It's the least you can do.
My, my, my - quite a high horse you're on, considering that you're advocating the "justified" bombing of civilian populations in wartime. 
Oh, and there's quite a difference between art depicting wartime atrocities and "snuff". Or would you say that Picasso's Guernica is "snuff"? Tell me, do you even read your posts and think about them, before posting them? Or is this just some sort of funky stream-of-consciousness thing...? - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15695 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai:
Call me naive, but a murderer who "finds religion" or whatever concept makes him/her understand the severity of their act is a little more respectable than a murderer who was "just following orders".
Not really. One argument was about acknowledging actions, the other was about justifying them.
I'm sure that if they had known the impact of the bombings, they would've reconsidered.
Well outside of Vietnam and Cambodia, they have tried to reduce bombing to a minimum.
Again, the Japanese massacre was worse, because they did all sorts of things to the Chinese besides killing them off.
Unfortunately, war is really a clash between the amount of life you attempt to protect versus the amount of life you intentionally or unintentionally lose. Civilian deaths are inevitable. So the "winners" are usually the ones who achieve the former more than the latter.
Look. When you have two countries who will do anything to wipe out people who fit their definition of an "inferior race", and drag the rest of the world down with them, it's tough to trust them not to pull a fast one on you. If you had been stuck fighting tooth-and-nail in a vicious war for as many years as the U.S.-and even longer in the U.K.-you'd be paranoid too. It doesn't make the situation right, but at least the Allies helped the survivors rebuild their countries, which is more than can be said about the Japanese.
And once you attempt to avoid any distinction between any two wrongs, then you've chucked the concept of moral and legal justice.
Not really. The victims of the Boer Wars wouldn't consider Austria-Hungary to be the greater of the two evils.
Not really, since I'm not exploiting people's deaths for E-Bay, but recognizing that their sacrifices will not be unappreciated.
It would be if he decided to make a quick buck on it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are failing to differentiate between prior moral qualms, and after-the-fact moral qualms. There is a great difference between knowingly committing an enormity, versus later realising one's crime and repenting. Now, this gives us a typology of murder: - Murderer A, who commits a crime without realising its severity and later repents - Murderer B, who commits a crime without realising its severity, and never repents - Murderer C, who commits a crime knowing full well its severity, and later repents - Murderer D, who commits a crime knowing full well its severity, and never repents Now, before you attack this typology, please note that I am well aware of its stiff and unwieldy nature - it's a sketch, not a complete description. The types of atrocities we see will seldom fall easily into one of these categories. Sociopaths, btw, belong squarely in category B. So, let's look at it. Those responsible for the Nanjing Massacre fall mostly within category B, I would say - since there seems to be a lack of basic understanding that this was just beyond the pale. But what of the Allied commanders (notably Arthur Harris, who demostrably knew the full consequences of his actions)? They fall, I would argue, into category D. They knew what they were doing was morally wrong, and even after the war, they never repented it.
They did know the impact of the bombings, both before and after - that impact was the mission objective, not an unintended byproduct. There is ample documentary evidence to support this, so you might as well forget about that line of argument.
That's a pretty big exception. It's like saying "outside of a few bombs here and there, the terrorists are pretty peaceful guys".
No argument there. The Allies didn't rape the people of Dresden. Then again, piles of ash don't really make for good rape victims. You are attempting to create a hierarchy of atrocities - to say that one atrocity is "worse" than another. To do so is to open the gates for the argument that the "lesser" atrocity can be justified by the "greater". Once you start arguing like that, you wind up justifying torture chambers (*cough* Abu Ghraib *cough*), imprisonment without benefit of fair trial (*cough* Guantanamo *cough*) and other trappings of a totalitarian state.
Ah, the Napoleonic argument. "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" (said by Napoleon after he ordered his gunners to fire grapeshot at a crowd). Sure, I agree, wars are not clean-cut moral affairs. Neither side usually has the moral high ground, and mistakes are always made at all levels of command. Whether it be a few soldiers who run amok (My Lai), or atrocities commanded at the highest levels (Nanjing), no war has ever been fought without these things happening. It's a fact of war - and one of the reasons why war is such an abomination is that it produces these things. But there is a great difference between committing atrocities in the heat of war, and justifying them later - and it seems to me that you are doing that.
For once, a reasonable argument. Yes, I'll buy that. The Allies made several morally repugnant decision under pressure. That is understandable, if not easily forgivable. I'll also agree that the Allied aid to rebuilding Germany and Japan was an enlightened and sensible policy - one that did much to lay the old enmities to rest. It puts the Allies in a better light, there is no doubt of that. But it still is not an excuse, nor an after-the-fact justification, for atrocities. You can't say: "Sure, we did bad stuff, but look how nice we're being now." There has to be an "I'm sorry" in there, too. And the Allies really never made that stage of moral resolution. Although Western historians write of the atrocities of Dresden and Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these have never been made the subject of a formal apology. So what happens to the Allied "moral high ground", then? In fact, if you stroll around London, you can see statues of several "war heroes" who were responsible for atrocities - Harris (terror bombing of Germany), Wellington (terror bombing of Copenhagen), Nelson (use of POWs as hostages, threatening to burn them alive). I'm sure a little stroll around major cities of the U.S. can produce similar findings. Imagine the uproar if Germany were to raise up a statue to, say, Konstantin von Neurath? Atrocities happen in wartime - but to be proud of them, and to consider them justified, is a sick thing.
Sure, there is a difference between two wrongs - but an atrocity is an atrocity. You can't bend and twist the concept of atrocious murder.
I'd comment on this, but I think it really deserves to stand uncommented. It's gloriously beside the point.
You don't really know a lot about Pablo Picasso, do you? If he could make a quick buck, trust me - he would've. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
enjin2000
 Posts: 1484 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At present Chinese government does not make a comment. I wonder if they do not know the problem or they know it will turn the scale against itself to do so.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I would assume that the Chinese government doesn't give a toss about a Japanese manga. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Arizona
 Posts: 144 Location: Phoenix |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Wow, Abunai, I hope you get that cough taken care of real soon. The Army is addressing Abu Ghraib. I guess because we made a some mistakes we should damn the whole effort to democratize Iraq and go home. Not all of us are there to mess around with detainees. Not by a long shot. As far as Guantanamo Bay is concerned, I just read in Time that at least 3 men released from there went right back to Al-Qaeda. We're not detaining Sunday-schoolers over there. As far as the targeting of enemy cities for aerial bombing is concerned, it just made sense, militarily. The goal of war is to win. Unfortunately, in our modern world, cities contain factories which employ civilians to make war materials. Why wait untill those materials are arrayed against you? Nip it in the budd. Austria-Hungary was indeed the spark that ignited WW1. But there was a tremendous amount of kindling around such as the intense rivalry between Germany and Great Britain over alliances, colonies, and who could build the most battleships. Austria-Hungary merely started a war in which it would play a junior role. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I've got something stuck in my craw - I think it's a scruple. 
"The police is investigating allegations of police brutality"
You'll notice I didn't say that. What I implied, in my own heavy-handed way, was that the events in those two locations are symptomatic of a way of thinking that says "our actions may be atrocious, but they are justified because our enemy is even worse". It's the logic of torture chambers. I'm not simple-minded enough to tar every American soldier with the same brush - but when something like that happens, it is a symptom of a dread disease - not something to be dismissed as the work of a few misguided individuals.
Time magazine, eh? Hmm. And does it occur to you to question this source of information, or did you accept it at face value?
Well, sure, it made military sense. It also makes military sense to use nuclear, biological and chemical weapons against the enemy, or to bomb his hospitals and places of worship to demoralise him. Fortunately, there's more to warfare than considerations of "military sense". "Military sense" is a dangerous concept - because it's simple logic, without the benefit of scruples. Once you do away with scruples, what you've got is sociopathy.
Ah, now there's the kind of response I was looking for earlier - too bad that other fellow has half your wits, or he'd be more fun. All right, I'll bite: yes, Austria-Hungary only functioned as a catalyst. The major players of WW1 were Britain and Germany, with a leavening of Russia and France. Had the former two states managed to reach a detente, the Great War would have been... well, not avoided, but possibly ameliorated. What happened was a chain reaction of knee-jerk responses, as one state after another was caught in the web of its own posturing, bound by grandiose statements of intent that they had no way of retracting without massive loss of face. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
fractured78
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Though this whole part of the thread is off topic I just wanted to say I agree with your post. Specifically to the second paragraph-there is no way to civilize war, especially when the survival of your people is at stake, which was the case during WWII. Having done martial arts I know that if my life is threatened I will do my damndest to destroy my opponent quickly and viciously. I won't be clean. I'll go straight for vital points, joint dislocations, and bone breaks. I never know how many friends my opponent have waiting for me-so my goal is to end it as quickly as possible. The fight itself is the sad thing, but once engaged I have no recourse but to do what is required to win. The same goes for war. The war itself is a sad thing, but, once enjoined, doing what is required to win is of utmost importance. This is not a justification, but simple pragmatism. As for the British statues. They won a war that Britain was on the very brink of losing. It's easy for us to judge them in the now when we haven't seen thousands of our comrades die, seen our hometown destroyed, or seen our allies annihilated. Did they go too far sometimes? I'm sure they did. People are not automatons, they make mistakes. The difference, I think, is that they were mistakes-not their very purpose. We should not whitewash their records, but should acknowledge what they did in totality. WWII Britain did what was required to win as did the allies. The Rape of Nanking had nothing to do with winning. That fight was already won. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ah, now this takes us back on track - and I agree with you. What makes the Nanjing Massacre so horrifying is that not only was it an atrocity - it was a redundant atrocity. Even if one is inclined to argue that some atrocities are "necessary" (as some people apparently are), there can be no after-the-fact doublethink "justification" for Nanjing. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15695 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai:
I'm sorry, but I'm calling bs on your argument. The Japanese knew exactly what they were effing doing, and did it across most of Asia. The Americans bombed a few cities, and suddenly, they're "as bad" as the Japanese. And the reason the Allies didn't "repent" was because they were responding to one of many vicious attacks that had been perpetuated by the Axis for a decade. It doesn't make the situation better, but at least they actually spent the money to re-build Dresden and the rest of Germany and Japan, which still says more about them then it does to the other countries, since Germany only decided to pay reparations a few years ago, while Japan has limited reparations to a few select groups.
Perhaps, but it wasn't for the sake of wiping out the entire German race that Dresden was bombed.
I'm sure you could say the same about Hamas. Oh wait, no, they're not "terrorists", but "liberators" in your eyes. Anyway, when you Dutch f*cks compensate the victims of apartheid, then you can have a moral ground to stand on. At least we've had the decency to re-negotiate ties with Vietnam and Cambodia after the mess we made.
But apparently human beings made good models for vivisection.
Um, not really, since the methods used in the War on Terror have been illegal and immoral from the get-go. And technically, Saddam was our puppet, so whatever torture he's done was paid for by us. On the other hand, I still don't consider Dresden "as bad" as any of the things you've just described. The Germans lost far less people than they took down. The same goes with the Japanese.
Look. They tried avoiding hitting civilians in World War I, by assigning special battlefields to fight; but millions of lives were lost with absolutely no progress made on either side, until the U.S. came in. The methods used just weren't practical. The only solution for winning any war is taking down an enemy's weapon supply or base. And sometimes civilians suffer as a result. It's wrong, but that's what happens in war.
I'm not justifying the atrocities, but given the kind of enemy we were up against, they were unavoidable. They could've been diminished, but that's about it.
Ask Germany to do the same for Poland first. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041018/ap_on_re_eu/germany_poland_claims_1
The "moral high ground" comes from the fact that those atrocities are acknowledged.
Perhaps, but Britain still has better ties with Germany than Japan has with China and the Koreas, because the British acknowledge their actions. Plus in the end, both countries were pretty much even, since the Britain was a mess after the Blitz.
I think the fact that Neurath counts as the instigator is why the uproar would be raised.
Um, I never said I was proud of them. I said they were inevitable, and that the means to justify our end were a lot less destructive than the means to justify their end.
I agree that you can't. But you also can't multiply one atrocity to have the same weight as another.
But he obviously didn't with Guernica.
I do know that the atrocities committed against Korea were the reasons anime and manga importation were banned there for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if China had a similar attitude. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See, when you look back on this later on, you can say to yourself: "This is where I completely lost it." About every single basic fact or assumption in that block of nonsense was completely wrong, and it's not the first time you've been down that road - you clearly have a weak grasp on facts, whether historical or otherwise. I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but enough is enough. I consider that any further debate with you would be a waste of my time, since the kindest interpretation I could put on your constant foolishness - namely, that you are merely uninformed - no longer seems likely. Frankly, I am more inclined to simply believe that you are wilfully and deliberately ignorant, and likely to remain so regardless of any attempts on my part to remedy that. I've spent enough time trying, and I'm done with you. Oh, by the way.... I'm Danish, not Dutch. Apartheid was in South Africa, not the Netherlands. Hamas are terrorists, not liberators, in my book. And I hope to God that the American population in general has a higher moral standard than you do, though it doesn't seem particularly likely. You are dismissed. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group