That was an emotional statement in my opinion. If you still refute, cite some statements posted by Chinese posters on Japanese war crimes and lets analyse how the two differ.
Wow, now you are accusing China being ungracious winner? First, it's not just the Chinese that protested. Are the Koreans? Malasian? Sigaporians etc all ungracious winners too? Second, China waived its demand for war indemnities from Japan at the intergovernmental level (this demand was first made in the mid-1950s; the war reparations claims totaled as much as the equivalent of US$50 billion.) Third, you think official visits on surrender day doesn't have political implication beyond "they were soldiers and patriots too"? You know Hitler was a sodier and patriot too. Try again.
Well, from NeoNazis' point of view, they are exercising their rights to free speech, no matter how hateful and intimidating to the targeted people. The march was approved by the local authority and it was carried out in public property, no matter how close to the "edge of someone's lawn." Further more, the violence might well be started by the targeted residents, who might have become "emotional" and thrown the first punch or delivered the first push, physically.
Did they, really? That's remarkable. I know the West was trying to prevent a repeat of the catastrophic war indemnities placed on Germany after WWI, leading to the rise of Hitler, in the opinion of many, and certainly the destruction of the German economy, runaway inflation, and the collapse, finally, of democratic Germany. I'm surprised. Keep D&D Civil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_relations look in the 70s paragraph. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Peace_with_Japan for Japense compensation to other Asian countries.
It leaves open the possibility of individual claims against the Japanese government by Chinese citizens, the way I read it, but that was a real gesture by China towards Japan. Thanks for the info. Keep D&D Civil.
I guess that gesture turned out to be for nothing. Japanese don't appreciate it as they think they were "saving" chinese. The media and gang on capital hill always try to make the public think Chinese are demons, but the truth is Chinese are civilized and peaceful. The problem between China and Japan is squarely on Japan.
OK I've just waded through 12 pages of this topic and I'm not sure that was a good idea. I've been regretting that work and illness (nothing serious just bouts of bad hayfever) have prevented me from posting more but looking on this thread and the "Arab woman tells it like it" tells me that maybe this has been a good thing not spending so much time on the BBS. I'm not sure what more I can add to this thread but being the vociferious mental masturbater that I am I will. A few thoughts. To my fellow ethnic Chinese posters chilll.. Like you I am fully against the official visits to the Yasukuni war shrine by Japanese politicians and the historical revisionism of the Japanese but you guys are getting so overboard with this issue that it is hard to discuss it rationally. As for some of those arguing that Chinese shouldn't be upset about Japanese visiting the War Shrine since they are visiting Mao's shrine that still strikes me as a bad analogy. Yes Mao IMO was an evil megomaniac who was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions that still doesn't excuse Japanese politicians honoring people who committed some of the worst attrocities known to humanity. Yes, they are respecting their history and the Japanese culture has a strong sense of ancestor worship but that said there is a reason why many people in America get offended by groups that still honor the Confederacy. History and culture are great but sometimes you just have to say that these people were on the wrong side of history and while yes Robert E. Lee had many admirable qualities and as an individual was very noble he was fighting to maintain an unjust and immoral way of life. So yes I agree Mao shouldn't be honored, and I say that as someone who's been to the Mao shrine, but that doesn't mean that Chinese shouldn't be upset over the Yasukuni shrine. I not a big fan of the PRC government and will criticize them over a lot of things like Tibet, Taiwan and their currency policy. That still doesn't mean that I'm going to be OK with what the Japanese are doing. Also since I've been on a free speech kick lately I will say that the Japanese do have a right to worship war criminals if they want to. I think they're wrong and immoral to do so but in the end its their country. Violent protests I don't think are helping the situation like the violent protests by Muslims over the Danish cartoons. What I would hope would happen is that the Japanese themselves wake up and recognize that their honoring of war criminals and revisionists history isn't helping them and alienating them from both a country that will have a huge impact on the region but also from many other Asian countries. Finally I don't like to single out other posters but I have to single out crimson_rocket. Good For You! I'm glad to see a high school student taking the initiative on your own to go and learn about a subject that you don't think your school is doing a good job enough. If there were more students like you I would feel better about our future.
You know? Iraqi refugees in US swore Sadam had WMD 5 years ago, turns out they were just saying to please pentagan and get funding. The cuban refugees in US will tell you it is like hell on earth in Cuba, but the reality is Cuban over there seem to live just fine. If you rely on what refugees say to learn what a country is like, 99 out of 100 time you will be fooled. Remember, a lot of people will say anything to get refugee status and green cards, and plenty of them are getting paid to badmouthing their home countries.
There is a limit to free speech. Otherwise you'd think there is nothing wrong with Iranian leaders denying the existence of Holocaust, or certain islamic teaching that all non-muslims are infidels. After all, they were only expressing their opinions and they do have the right to choose their beliefs, according to you logic. No, none of these should be left alone.
You misunderstand. While I would certainly say the Iranian President is a loon, an idiot, and other unprintable things for making the statements he's made about the Holocaust, I defend his right to make those statements, as much as I disagree with them. It's the same with religious teachings I find abhorrent... people are free, at least in this country, to say what they like about religion, or politics, or any number of things that the vast majority might disagree with. That's freedom of speech. I think Sishir would agree. Keep D&D Civil.
So if a religious leader walks into a mosque in Chicago and start claiming that "god" want them to blow up shopping malls, train stations, we should just respect his right of free speech and let him recruit suicide bombers, right? The thing is US isn't even saying anything about the shrine visits, while Bush made a big fuss about Iranians' denying holocaust. Seems to me there is double standard here. Don't you think?
If the man is inside a church/mosque, that would fall under both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I would hope the members of the "mosque," you are hypothetically referring to would do something about him. And I would hope the police would put him under surveillance, and act if he was a danger to the public. As for whatever Bush may have said regarding Iran's President and his statements on the Holocaust, I honestly can't remember Bush saying anything coherent about it. I've said plenty. Freedom of speech is exactly that... freedom of speech. It doesn't mean you are allowed to yell, "Fire!" should you be in a movie theatre, but that isn't what you are talking about. Keep D&D Civil.
When Nazi Germany was in discussion, or to be more specific, if Holocaust was in discussion on this board. Nobody showed any tolerance of free speech. Because most people here are aware of the that piece of history, and most people understand how terrible it was. There was never such notion as "It was bad, but...". Posters who are not familiar with Holocaust, they will keep quiet, because the awareness around the whole nation is felt easily. Nobody wanted to be considered ignorant and Hitler supporter. However, when Japanese war crimes were in discussion in the past. Only ethnic Chinese fully understand the scale of that war, the pain and humiliation went through each family during that dark period. Nobody except for ethnic Chinese consider those crimes on par with Holocaust. Red China was never a favorite internationally. It's always easy to say than to do, to look beyond religion, system, race etc. Whenever Red China was involved, whatever they say (including news regarding Yao), people will question its credibility first. PRC government never did a good job to treat its own people well, nor did Kiang's nationalists. However, rationally, one could easily see what happened 20 or 40 years ago among Chinese, have nothing to do with what Japanese troops did to Chinese 60 years ago. I don't blame gerneral Western people lacking of knowledge of what happened in China then, because Chinese didn't do a very good job to tell people about that 8 years, but on the other hand, Japan did a superior job to deny it. Given the ally role Japan having, Western people especially Americans do trust them more. But they tend to forget, during those years, China was actually their Ally in fighting Japan. European on the other hand are doing a better job in condemning Japanese effort to deny war history and honoring war criminals. I do encourage people interested in what really happened, to read more about that. Maybe KMT's version is more credible than PRC's, of course not the current Taiwan official lines, but rather the Taiwan official lines about 10 years ago. I am pretty sure, if one realizes those crimes were on par with the most terrible thing ever happened on earth, people will start to understand why ethnic Chinese were so emotional about it, just like Jewish people's reaction regarding Holocaust denial. Maybe then, when a discussion occur, people will start respect the death, not easily make light of it, or give you that "it's bad, but...". Maybe then, people will rethink before they try to defend or downplay those crimes, because nobody wants to be considered Hitler-supporter, or supporter of similar war criminals. I am hopeful that the world will get the full picture. Only facing history honestly will help people preventing terrible history to repeat. It's so for Holocaust, and it's also the same for Nanjing Masacre or the Rape of Nanjing.
There is free speech. But when government officials made racial comments, international committee is there to put pressure on that government. Lots of times, when racial comments or Holocaust involved, world leaders would be up in arms to condemn or express concern. So free speech isn't so free. However, in the visiting shrine incident, world leaders especially US leaders are always silent. Why? Japan is an ally now, and it's a leverage against China. Free speech is just used as excuse in this scenario. Political gain always triumphs over justice and true democracy, especially on international stage.
Yeah, freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean public opinion won't/shouldn't drown him to the point he will no longer have a public life. Everyone, from Bush to all those on this board will come out and comdamn him. And that's the point. Isn't it?
We are gonna have to agree to disagre on this issue. I am against Bush on almost all issues, especially his disrespect of civil rights. But I do think there is a limit to freedom of speech (or a limit to anything in general). At least, we should voice our opinion against such irresponsible speeches, as you stated above. So far, this administration, nor general american public, has said NOTHING about Japanese worshiping Hitler-equavalents.
If you haven't read my posts, not surprising since I haven't been posting that much lately, you will see that I say that Iranians have a right to deny the existence of the Holocaust and have a cartoon show about it. I don't agree with it and think its immoral but they should be allowed to express it. Of course Muslims have a right to call non-Muslims infidels. I'm a non-Muslim and I would expect to be an infidel to a Muslim since I don't believe in Mohammed's teachings. Just as I would expect to be considered a pagan to a Christian or a gentile to a Jew. The thing is though you and I have the right to disagree with these views and express our opinions too. Freedom of speech is meaningless when its only a few right views can be expressed.
