[7/18] Korean protesters deface Japanese flags, kill national birds

[guy]

I don't need to spell out the wrongdoigns of Japan because they are very well known -- at least among people who have studied 20th century East Asian history and are aware of Japan's modern international policies. Would you prefer it if I described Japan in an "overstated" manner by calling Japan an island of racist, r**ist, ignorant ultra-nationalists who freely ignore history and continue to practice imperialist behavior? Or maybe you would prefer it if I made my criticisms of Korea more "palatable" by saying that the Korean government is just going through some hard times, and while the actions of its people aren't great, I simply don't understand Koreans so I really shouldn't criticize them?

No, instead you seem to be saying that it's not fair to look at the facts of what Korea is doing wrong. But rather than arguing why such facts should not be analyzed in the ways I have submitted, you claim that they are irrelevent simply because I am a nationalist (pandering to anti-Korean rhetoric, ergo racism). Sure, my views may indeed be closer to that of a Japanese right-wing, but does that mean I'm wrong for criticizing outlandish behavior of certain Korean protesters?

You are upset that I, blow-for-blow, end up criticizing Korea more so than Japan. I base my criticisms on the facts of how the Korean and Japanese governments and peoples are behaving. I can't help that when comparing the phrases "Japanese government to mention Takeshima in textbooks" and "Korean protesters kill national birds and deface Japanese flags", the latter draws more scrutiny. I am not criticizing Korean objectives in the least -- Korea has legitimate concerns regarding Japan's recklessness (towards Liancourts) and irresponsibility (with its textbooks). I am critical of Korea's methods, because I don't see how allowing extremist protest behavior, putting future economic ties in jeopardy, or even slyly threatening nuclear attack with North Korea, is supposed to make the situation better. Yes, Japan deserves more scrutiny for its role in this mess, but it is not going to get it if Korea continues to resort to uncontrolled behavior.

I am not saying that Korea is an inferior country. Korea has a vast and unique cultural heritage, a (very) strong national identity, incredible ability for a powerful economy, and (at least at this point) the potential to become one of the great world powers. I would say the same things about Japan. However both countries also have their problems, and when it comes to Korea-Japan relations, I don't understand how allowing Korea to continue doing what it's doing (even if it's a response to what Japan is doing) is going to help.

Since you feel at liberty to attack me personally, allow me to offer one myself: You would be happy if I stated Korea being inferior because that happens to be the easy answer and doesn't require critical analysis; oddly enough, that's the kind of black-and-white answer that you so readily disdain. And then accusing me of lumping you together with Korean nationalists, when you yourself accuse me of being a Japanese nationalist -- Nice.

All other arguments aside, you are free to think of me however you want -- I couldn't care less if you called me an anti-Korean Japanese ultranationalist. But so far the only thing you have done is continually argue that my analysis is biased, flawed, wrong, without so much a counter-argument about what the right analysis is. In other words, you're attacking me instead of my arguments.

You: "Your analysis is wrong because you employ flawed logic and bias."
Me: "If that's true, then what is the correct logic to use regarding the facts that have been presented, and what is its resulting unbiased argument?"
You: ... (we haven't gotten there yet)

So you believe I am wrong, but rather than counter-arguing against my arguments, you attack me personally (calling out my methods, supposed biases, etc). But by choosing to attack me rather than provide "the correct analysis", you leave my arguments uncontested. I dare say that you can't argue against the facts, but simply don't like how I'm saying it, so instead you try to "throw red paint on me" in an effort to put me down. At the very least you could offer a psychoanalysis (of the Korean mentality) as to a possible reason why criticism may not be the best solution for this issue.

Honestly, who cares if you belittle me? So far my criticisms of irrational behavior of certain protesters on behalf of Koreans still stand unrefuted from the first post, and at the end of the day that's all I was intending to present.

 

[triela]

You are correct in your assessment of the irrational behavior of Koreans in the bird-killing incident. This is a single microcosmic event, and your analysis of that specific instance is, as you say, unrefuted. I am trying to examine an approach that addresses issues that have been longstanding and unresolved from the past, in addition to consideration of the current situation. Your "solution" is entirely self-contained in the present. It is unrealistic because of the degree of reason that has been lost by the Korean public. It is a simple matter for me to propose that Japan should voluntarily, without any goading from Korea, change its textbooks to correct the "injustice to the world" just because it would be the right thing to do. This action is not needed before Korean action (submission to ICJ or likewise) because Japan is at greater fault - quite the contrary. This action is needed first because Koreans are so passionate about these issues that it only makes sense to prioritize the neutralization of increasingly dangerous behavior that may result from the country whose general public, not government, is primarily the responder to action. Who knows if this is the proper solution? But Korea's public is the volatile entity, not the Japanese government. Korea's government is doing nothing to prevent some of its citizens from escalating this type of behavior. It is not Japan's responsibilty to control Korea's citizens. But if Japan corrects its textbooks, it wouldn't be on behalf of Korea, it would be simply be a display of integrity.

does that mean I'm wrong for criticizing outlandish behavior of certain Korean protesters?

No. I've been agreeing with you on this all along.

You are upset that I, blow-for-blow, end up criticizing Korea more so than Japan.

Korea deserves plenty of criticism. But there's no need to constantly euphemize in the case of Japan ("oh, they're just misunderstood, it's not fair") and constantly patronize in the case of Korea ("that's how terrorists would think") when making statements. Why? Two people in conversation about a two-sided topic cannot be productive if one person insists on defining one side of the issue with such apologisim and the other side with such dismissiveness. You are presenting the issue so inherently as a straw-man argument that anyone who agrees to be bound by your skewed definitions cannot form counter-arguments. Qualifying statements so constantly in opposite directions is specifically what led me to call you a nationalist (not an ultranationalist).

Now that I've satisfied your request to provide a proposal, I ask you to answer why such a large portion of your previous post was filled with complete distortions of things I never even claimed. Your previous post was so monumentally off-base about so much of what I've said thus far, I could not allow you to so easily paint me as a a senseless buffoon who decries even the slightest criticism of Korea.

Please, enlighten me. [In all seriousness, do you know what a straw-man argument is?]

 

[buttobi]

There is a fine line between direct racism and a personal projection of racism. Any foreigner living in Japan is going to feel segregated from Japanese society to some degree just by fact that Japan is over 90% ethnic Japanese, demographically. Accordingly, a foreigner may find him/herself unable to ignore that statistic every day, judging everything that happens to him/her accordingly even if it is not racially driven. That foreigner might then erronously conclude that every hardship he/she faces is a direct result of his/her race, when in reality many people in Japan might face similar hardships, regardless of race.

I'm sure I could ask a foreigner who grew up in Japan if he/she was bullied in school, if he/she had difficulty interacting with Japanese socially, and so on. But is it necessarily unique to foreigners? Japanese children are bullied too, and a growing demographic of Japanese are being secluded from society (NEET, etc). I would be more interested in talking with the respectable Japanese that you mentioned, asking them why they choose the specific "wording" they used, and what prejudices they hold against ethnic Koreans. It would be irresponsible and unfair for me to take some words and assume them to be racist. What if I was wrong and completely misunderstood their rhetoric -- am I still right in accusing them of being racist?
(Don't you know that many of the "No Foreigners Allowed" signs in Japan stem simply from the shop owner's lack of English proficiency? Upon being confronted about the "racist" connotation, the shop owners apologized profusely for the misunderstanding, explained their intent, and immediately revised or took down the signs.)

More concretely, if a bully attacked both a Japanese person and also a Zainichi, it might not be fair for us to accuse him of being racist (a more accurate accusation would be of being violent). If a different bully attacked only a Zainichi, we would certainly have more reason to accuse him of being racist. But the fact by itself of Zainichi being attacked does not justify labeling all bullies as racists, nor are we justified in making people believe that Japan is "filled with racism", and that life in Japan for all non-Japanese is inherently difficult accordingly.

I would love to hear how you would make the comparison between Zainichi and African Americans. The way I look at it, the racial spread in American demographics is completely different than that of Japan (again, over 90% ethnic Japanese). You're asking Japan to behave as if it had an equal amount of people of all races with a hybrid/integrated culture to reflect that demographic. But that simply isn't the case, so you attribute every social imbalance to some tendency of Japanese people being racist. I hope I don't have to explain the couple of skips in logic that occurs there.

Let me be clear: I never said there was no racism in Japan, nor do I think that the cases of direct and harmful racism (being unfairly targeted by police, landlords refusing housing, or worse) are acceptable -- those must be addressed accordingly (and to an extent they are or can be). However I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that every hardship a foreigner "feels" is because of Japan being racist -- it gives the impression that Japanese people are all racist. Sometimes people are just too hard on themselves, and this happens everywhere.

Why bother with these distinctions? Because when you allow for skips in logic, then you allow people to be falsly accused of being racist when they may have completely rational reasons for treating a person differently (bad behavior, incompatible personalities, inability to relate culturally, etc). Worse, in making the leap that some minorities (or even all) will always face racism, you make it seem as if it's Japan's fault for being over 90% ethnically Japanese. Under that impression, the solution would be to dissolve Japan's customs and culture in an effort to normalize racial boundaries, with activist groups (like Debito) who would gladly force Japanese to give non-Japanese special treatment.

While I understand your logic, to be perfectly honest it seems to me you're talking about a different country than Japan where I live. Especially when you lump Zainichi with other foreigners living in Japan.

Zainichi are not foreigners for the Japanese and they are not being seen as such by Japanese people. Japanese people in general are friendly to foreigners but when it comes to the Koean it seems as if they have a tradition or something of showing contempt, hostility and hatred. Is this because of "the anti-Japanese propaganda being distributed in Korea"? Absolutely not. At war times Korean people were forced to move to Japan to do compulsory labor for Japan, to work as slaves in effect. Looks like they have inherited from their parents or grandparents the wartime views of the Korean as their inferiors. They often use a n-word, actually c-word in Japan, when they refer to the Korean and they use this c-word even for their nationals when they show contempt like "is he C?" or "he must be C to say or do such things." I meant things like this when I said you could compare Zainichi to African-American, not of today but of a long time ago.

But things are changing in Japan and younger generations are getting less prejudiced against the Korean. A Korean TV drama "Fuyu no sonata (Winter Sonata) boomed heatedly and generated many fans of Korean actors and actresses in Japan. http://www.kbs.co.kr/end_program/drama/winter/index.html The new word Kanryu 韓流　(Korean Wave) was born and people have got far more interested in the Korean culture. In fact Kanryu has become a new trend of popular culture in Japan. No one could imagine a half century ago that things like this would happen in Japan.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/韓流

It's unfair to overemphasize the anti-Korean sentiment in Japan. Still it's equally unfair to belittle it. It is deep-rooted in the Japanese society and could always dominate the public opinion like Korean anti-Japan sentiment did in the case of Dokdo.

So far my criticisms of irrational behavior of certain protesters on behalf of Koreans still stand unrefuted from the first post, and at the end of the day that's all I was intending to present.

Your criticism will stay unrefuted not because it is justifiable but because it is unrefutable by nature. It is your moral judgement. I respect it as such. But whether or not I agee with you on it is a different story.

 

[angle_eddy]

I can’t take it anymore.

 

[noyonoyo]

damn koreans

as far as im concerned, if it wasnt for the usa, all of korea would be japan!!! ungrateful retards. should have cleaned them up long time ago. they just take advantage of the kindness of japan and that stupid treaty banning japan from having a strong military. cant they see...europe and usa are just keeping korea, china , and korea angry at each other so they can control us. imagine a world where china, korea, and japan were united...fricken politics and shit. and dont kill the damn birds asshole. what are you...8?issed:

 

[falconbane]

For the record...

The Japanese language actually originated from China during the Tang dynasty when a prince of the an early separate Japanese kingdom (prefects?) sent an envoy. (Why do you think Kanji is so deeprooted in the japanese language even after so many hiragana revisions?). However, the Japanese did take a lot of Korean cultures and customs and incorporated into their own during the medieval time aside from the Chinese culture. That being side, there were some mutual exchange of cultural exchanges as can be seen in various architectures and traditions in the entire region.

Guy tries to view argument from an outsider perspective, but probably unknowingly or subconsciously (I hope not intentionally, otherwise the post is moot) became biased on the issues he presented (wearing tinted-glasses would be correct term). The japanese language is unique in its usage. There are different level of "respect" attached to their wording, even more so than the english language.

The respectively level can be divided thusly (there are more levels, but they are dying out anyways )-

Imperial - a supremely difficult and elegant way of speech that one would use for the royal family. Historical, failure to address the "royals" properly will be considered an insult to them.

Superior - the language you would use when you are addressing someone when they are more senior than you (in station, age, respect, or duty). This language is often used when you talk to your boss (formally of course), a minister, introducing of a distinguished guest, etc...

Neutral - a language used when you are addressing someone as an equal. (ie, co-worker, friends) Know that affectionate undertones can be used in this case (I will not include affectionate usage for obvious reasons )

Inferior - a slightly belittling language when used by an higher authority addressing it's underlings or the general population. (Just watch a minister give a speech). Or you an see this even in school in term of "senpai" and "kohei".

Insulting - one would use this language when speaking about someone that's beneath them. (ie, one that would address a slave, or someone that one distaste).


It's true for some of the older generations (and minority of younger generation) to use the "Insulting" tone when addressing Koreans in private. However, some of the japanese doesn't even realize that they are doing it since it might commonplace for them or it's that deeprooted in their psyche.

This distinction might be lost on someone like Guy (who aren't local, or know the language aside from standard usage), people not emotionally involve or historically knowledgeable about the "oppressor-subjugated" language. "Protests" about the form of "usage" can be dated back to early Japan - China relations when Japan was named "Wu/Ku" before "Ko". The japanese accepted the Wu/Ku name since they thought it was just the "sound" of it and just a name. That's until they discover the character (or kanji if you will) for that name is similar to the characters in chinese use for "bowing", "slave", "underling", etc... The japanese protests lasted centuries, souring the relationship at times.

As some have put it, the Chinese just "wave it off as simply a name" since they were the dominator. The Japanese protested continuously since it was "National Pride".

The form of protests is debatable, but then as are all protests that are not peaceful. There's no gripe with that.

The problem here is that the 3 sides here fails to understand each other.

One side simply don't understand why the Koreans are doing what they are doing and can be seen as slightly biased in doing so since it still doesn't understand certain parts of the "debate" (it's so big and encompassing, I'm tempted to call it a flame way almost )

The other side is trying to drive home the point that the other side don't understand as well as it thinks, but failing to understand the fact that the other side don't understand parts of the point it's trying to make since it seems common sense to ignore.

The last sides are the wing-nuts that tries to prove either Korean are superior or the Japanese are superior in this little fiasco. The side are obviously wearing tinted glasses, so nothing is to be said to them since it will fall on deaf ears.

Hope this post will provide some facts to defuse the emotional part of this topic and look at it as objectively as possible. If all else fails, just ask China to come in and try to claim it as its territory like it's doing now with the Sea of Japan. Or have someone nuke the islands so that there's nothing to argue over and have to use the continental shelf/landmass method to determine who owns what

 

[falconbane]

as far as im concerned, if it wasnt for the usa, all of korea would be japan!!! ungrateful retards. should have cleaned them up long time ago. they just take advantage of the kindness of japan and that stupid treaty banning japan from having a strong military. cant they see...europe and usa are just keeping korea, china , and korea angry at each other so they can control us. imagine a world where china, korea, and japan were united...fricken politics and shit. and dont kill the damn birds asshole. what are you...8?issed:

Europe took about a little over a millennium to start consolidating via the EU. It will take a while for Asia to catch up. And then of course there's the African Union. I remember reading a novel where the major powers were the Pan-Asia Confederation, the Altantic Federation, the Oceanics, African Union, the Latin State and the EU. Needless to say the PAC and the AU held dominating voices since an "embargo" threat was enough to make the other parties more amiable in its diplomatic approach. It's in the interest of the "business market" that Asia remains divided (ie Pearls of the East era.)

 

[gatsaraki88]

loosers kiling innocent bird! Why are korean's so rude? I'm at NYC and they are known for their rudeness.

 

[95049504]

erhaps:erhaps: