You are right Easy. It's different between hating the government and the people or country itself. That's where the problems arise, there's not only people in the world that hates the Chinese government, being rightfully so or not, there's also people with their secret agendas that desire to see the Chinese people remain poor forever, and inherently, suffer forever in order to fulfill their objectives. For the Chinese to be rich, it follows that China would be a strong country. A number of countries or regions don't want to see this happening. They deem a strong China will get in their way. The hardcore Japanese righties, who still live in their WWII justifications think this way. Some Taiwanese Independence seekers, despite their Chinese heritage, do not wish to see China continue its development, since a strong China would get in their way of independence. These agendas are not related to the current political scenarios of China, what kind of human rights China has has no bearings on such thinking. It's not saying they hate the Chinese, it's that they really don't care about the Chinese as human beings, and that result in a certain degree of cruelty, which is no better than hatred.
Get out of the muck of conspiracy theory, man. Can you find a shred of evidence of the "secret intentions"? If you are strong, nobody can weaken you by simply wishing so. The problem of China is that it does not have a healthy government.
Sinohero: What you call shred of evidence is common knowledge among Asians. If you are an asian, as your moniker seems to suggest, should know it already. There is an undeniable huge WWII militarism revival undercurrent in Japan. Like the NeoNazism in Germany. The diffrence is, such undercurrent is taking shape and has reached the government level in Japan. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200204/23/eng20020423_94539.shtml http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/13/Debrief.MacKinnon.otsc/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,874663,00.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca MacKinnon: Japan's prime minister visits a war shrine August 13, 2001 Posted: 1:41 PM EDT (1741 GMT) CNN Tokyo Bureau Chief Rebecca MacKinnon Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's unexpectedly early visit to a Tokyo war shrine Monday failed to stave off an angry reaction from Japan's neighbors, especially China. In an attempt to dampen the backlash, Koizumi avoided making the visit to the Yasukuni Shrine on August 15 -- the anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II. CNN Tokyo Bureau Chief Rebecca MacKinnon explores the issue. Q: What is this shrine and why is this significant? MacKinnon: The Yasukuni shrine was founded in 1869 as the central national shrine for the Shinto religion. Shinto is an ancient Japanese religion combining the worship of nature and natural objects, ancestors, heroes, and deities. Most Japanese today claim to practice some combination of Shintoism and Buddhism. From the Meiji Restoration in 1868 until Japan's defeat in World War II, Shinto was Japan's official state religion. The Japanese emperor was considered to be a living Shinto god. By extension, the Japanese people were thought to be a divine race and the Japanese army to acting on behalf of the divine will. The shrine is dedicated to the spirits of about 2.5 million Japanese who have died fighting for the emperor since the mid-1800s. Eighty percent are from World War II. Fourteen were convicted as "class A" war criminals by a special Tokyo war crimes tribunal administered by the allied powers. Since the war, Shinto is no longer the state religion and the emperor no longer claims to be divine (although there is a very small number of Japanese who still believe he is). Every day on August 15th, thousands of Japanese -- veterans, and patriotic citizens, as well as members of nationalist and right-wing groups -- pack the shrine grounds to worship the dead spirits, who, according to Shinto beliefs, have become deities. It is also an opportunity for like-minded people to share feelings about the events of World War II, Japan's postwar identity, and its future. Q: Why is Koizumi's visit there a hot button issue in Japan, in Asia, in the West? MacKinnon: The visit by any Japanese prime minister to Yasukuni at any time has always been extremely controversial. So controversial, in fact, that only one of Mr. Koizumi's predecessors actually visited the shrine officially as prime minister on August 15th. Yasuhiro Nakasone went in 1985, the 40th anniversary of Japan's surrender. The outcry both at home and abroad was so strong that no prime minister has done it since. Because war criminals are enshrined there, people in Asia and elsewhere who fell victim to the policies carried out by the Japanese armies in World War II believe that the prime minister's visit to the shrine sends an ominous signal. They believe it shows that Japan's leadership is not sorry for atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers around Asia. China has already criticized Japan for not adequately apologizing for the deaths of millions of Chinese. In both China and South Korea, anger runs high over a new Japanese textbook which many feel whitewashes actions like slaughter, torture, and the use of comfort women. They feel that a Yasukuni shrine visit is yet another example of Japan's refusal to admit its former "sins." Chinese and South Korean officials have expressed concerns about growing Japanese militarism. In Japan, there are those like Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka who opposed a visit because it would create more diplomatic headaches and long-term problems with the neighbors than it was worth. Others, like the Buddhist-backed Komeito party, opposed it on anti-violent religious grounds. Then there are others who, for various reasons, believe in pacifism or are concerned about the political leanings of many nationalist and right-wing groups who have been among the most vocal and visible supporters of Koizumi's Yasukuni visit. In the West, the issue is more distant, but many Westerners look at the Yasukuni visit controversy as a symptom of how Japan has or hasn't dealt with issues of responsibility and guilt over what happened during World War II. They compare the way that people in Japan think and talk about their country's actions during World War II to Germany, and how it has dealt with horrors of its wartime past. The two countries have handled their wartime histories very differently, and this is the subject of several fascinating books. Q: Why did Koizumi change his itinerary and make his visit two days before August 15? MacKinnon: Ever since he became prime minister in late April, Koizumi has been saying that he would visit Yasukuni on August 15th. He did not waver on this position at all until after his party, the LDP, managed a solid victory in parliamentary elections at the end of last month. The day after the election he suddenly started to say that he was aware many people in his own party, political coalition, and Cabinet were opposed to his visit, and that he would study their opinions carefully before making a final decision. From then until today, he played coy. Then his office suddenly announced at 3:30 p.m. that he would visit the shrine at 4:30 p.m.. Why the sudden change? One reason is, the pressure on him from people he respected was significant. Another reason, according to some reports in the Japanese media, may be that China and South Korea sent messages through unofficial channels that if he went to the shrine on some day other than August 15th -- when the place would be packed with right-wing nationalists and veterans in their old WWII uniforms -- the diplomatic consequences were likely to be less severe. Q: The prime minister has been developing a "young turk" reputation, that he is different and more independent than other leaders. Does the manner of his visit at the shrine enhance or take away from his image? MacKinnon: Koizumi's popularity stems largely from the fact that he is unlike any other prime minister Japan has ever had. The Japanese have a word, "ojisan", which they use to describe conservative middle-aged men (never to their face). A comment one frequently hears on the street is: "I'm sick of 'ojisan' government!" Koizumi speaks his mind. He acts unconventionally, he wears wild ties and perms his hair. He appears on talk shows and music videos. He claims to like heavy metal. Not only is he hip by prime ministerial standards, but he also dares to speak his mind. He says things bureaucrats don't like to hear. He appoints ministers who answer to him instead of to the bureaucrats who run the ministries. The economy is in bad shape, and the Japanese people have made it clear they want radical change. They also seem to agree by and large that he's the only person around with the leadership skills and charisma to have a chance to pull it off. His controversial decision to visit Yasukuni, despite all the furor, shows that he is also a risk-taker. But analysts point out that it's less of a domestic risk -- most Japanese supported the visit or didn't care, than opposed it, according to one recent poll. The long term diplomatic risk -- what this will do to relations with China and South Korea -- is potentially more serious, but also harder to predict. If the diplomatic fallout gets bad beyond a certain point, that will come back to bite him domestically, because serious diplomatic tensions with two neighbors who happen to be major trading partners could have a negative affect on Japanese businesses, as well as on schools, and cultural and sports organizations which are trying to promote ties and exchanges.
umm, the Japanese seem to be a bit sloppy at covering their "secret intentions". To worship war criminals is one thing (and of course wrong), to accuse them of harboring intentions of world conquest is another.
I wonder why there was no condemnation from the America to Japan when the Japanese leader openly worshipped the war criminals in a war shrine. China and Korea protested vehemently but it was all quiet on the human rights fighter Mr.Bush and American government part. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died under the swords of those Japanese war criminals, and Bush didn't stand up for them when their deaths were publicly insulted by the Japanese leaders. Double standard is what makes the America human rights report untrustworthy.
I wonder if perhaps some of the concepts that are bound in words like duty, honor, guilt, shame, and the like aren't quite true conceptual equivilancies. I have found recently that I often bristle when it comes to these subjects on odd points when things get translated back or forth. In otherwords, I think that perhaps what seems like a straight linguistic translation is actually something subtly different. I remember listening to a translation of the Chinese presentation durring the return of Hong Kong by the British and finding it confusing that the speakers seemed to be going out of their way to berate the British with statements of condemnation. To my western sensibilities, it seemed that the gracious response would have been one that focused on a 'bright new future'. In otherwords, when a conflict has been resolved the desire in the US might be to take the two seperate viewpoints and fuse them together, while the Chinese viewpoint seems more intent on clarifing the correct path? In your specific instance I look at this as a cultural act seeking to fuse those parts of their past which are good, worthwhile and honorable with the present, such as the almost maniacal positivity and dedication to industriousness that was a Japanese tradition. Perhaps similar to this would be the American fascination with Native American traditions, sites and cultures. Many cultural sites are historical parks, despite an open acceptance of the horible attrocities the Europeans commited. In the same sense, Christians visit European churches built from the spoils of conquest. I don't think any Westerners have hatred for Chinese peoples. I do think that many Westerners are scared of the Chinese government because of actions which we can not translate and predict rationally. I view the Chinese government as being dangerously autocratic and paranoid. Case in point is the secrecy which surounds the Chinese astronauts. I find this a paranoid and sinister approach for a subject that doesn't require these traits. I don't think it's a racial or ethnic problem either, because I know of very few Westerners that are uncomfortable with Taiwan, it's people, or it's government which in a slightly differnt world might have been the basis for the government of mainland China.
From my Chinese point of view, this war shrine thing, and other self-justifications on WWII that Japanese have done, is a black and white thing. It's no different from the German president taking a bow to Hitler's picture. Like you said, people like to go back and create the bond between past and present, but to me the point is, what kind of people you are decide what part of history you embrace as part of cultural fusion. Every country has committed atrocities in the past. Not every country pay tribute to war criminals. The Japanese have done a poor job in remorse of the atrocities and unimaginable hurt and humiliations they've committed to the Asians in WWII, unlike Germany. The westerners don't hate Chinese. Likewise, Chinese don't hate westerners. From the Chinese point of view, it's hard to understand why Chinese are often punished, or tried to be so, by the westerners at the reported mistakes of their government, which isn't under their control, while the Chinese themselves are said to be the victims. The USA hooks up trade status of China with the human rights condition, which they didn't do with South Africa. The westerners say Chinese shouldn't enjoy Olympics in their homeland because the government is bad. Blah Blah Blah. Maybe it's not hatred, maybe it's just coldness and insensitivity. Maybe it's that the fear of a communistic(a psudo one at that) regime overcomes careness to other human beings. I don't know, it's not right to shoot the people being held hostage in order to get rid of hijackers IMHO. It's also clear as broadlight, that some Americans don't wish to see another country emerging as a superpower that might challenge their status in the future. The Americans are very concerned about their superiority as to be able to call shots, so to speak. I understand that but I don't wish to see that unneccessary conflicts stem out of such concerns. This type of concern, though, unavoidably cast shadows on the motives of some American politicians, to ideologically raise concerns on China in order to weaken its status. Whether it's done deliberately or it's a result of misleading by some anti-China forces remain to be seen. In the event of a conflict of power. When the image of a competitor or rival being depicted as an evil foe, it just makes things much more easier. Granted, some of the negativity is true regarding the current government. I'd like to point out two points though. 1. To my perception of living in China after spending years living abroad, it's getting better. 2. Some of the allegations are plainly laughable and absurd. The western media has blown way too much smoke on China's human right record. You look at the news and journals and wonder how can they be so ignorant to the basic facts of China nowadays, and create a misled image of China in front of the general public. This is not my own concern. This is a universally known practice to nearly every Chinese I met or heard abroad. Bias abounds when it comes to China. In China you read the state controlled newspapers, it's always good about China. In America, well I can't remember when I read the last postive article on China. For instance, none of the articles I read on Tibet mentioned basic facts known by every Chinese, which is postive to the Chinese government, that is, every minority race enjoys priveleges compare to the majority race, the Han race. The Tibetans get to raise two children, instead of one. When their children grow up, they also get free points on their university enrollment test. It used to be a huge favor when university entrance competition was as fierce as melee combat. None of the western articles I read mentioned the fact that China owned Tibet since the Qing dynasty, and how backward Tibet was under the reign of Dalai Lama in the short spin-out-of-China phase after the collapse of Qing dynasty, or how much improvements there is in Tibet nowadays in medical, transportation, education and social equalities. One gets the impression that the Chinese just outright invaded Tibet after watching movies like "Seven Years in Tibet". Other biased media product also lead to the misconception of China. Such as the movie "Red Corner", a movie starred Richard Gere, who's a close friend of Dalai Lama BTW, in which a Chinese army general shot a criminal just outside of court and walked away like nothing happened. This is not what's happening in China. There is no signs that show the existence of secret or private execution here. People don't vanish in streets like that in Baghdad. If such things happen, words will go around. Chinese people are always vocal in their close circles. They make fun of their leaders and speak their mind. There is just no words of secret or private execution going around. Normal Chinese are not afraid of the government, although they know if they cross the line they will be punished, and those lines are very basic. They are used to live under dictatorship, especially a mild one, after 5000 years of it. Of course, they like ideas like social equality and democracy, and like to experiment them in the future, but that doesn't mean they are afraid or hate the current government. Many Chinese have affinity to the current government and have faith in its evolution. Attribute that to the sucessful proganda, and to the fact that Chinese feel grateful to the drastic changes in China led by the current government in the past twenty years. Enriched personal lives and an emerging China that makes them proud. I can understand why westerners view the Chinese government as paranoid, barring a deep understanding of China's history, culture and current status, it do seem the government is paranoid and unfathomable in lots of cases. For Chinese, although they don't like that side of government, they can nonethelessly understand the reasons behind. Pardon my ramblings.
