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

[kim0702a]

I think this news has sure wrong information dude... There are too many historical EVIDENCE that Dokdo (or Takeshima) belongs to Republic of Korea. I think this news just shows that "Dokdo belongs to Japan, but Koreans do not agree on that and do bad things." You should not give people wrong information.... :ban:

 

[guy]

There is no "wrong" information surrounding Liancourt Rocks. There is an overwhelming amount of ambiguity, and both countries are simply interpreting history to their favor.

If Japan claims Liancourt belongs to Japan by writing two sentences in textbooks, Korea certainly has every right to disagree and present its case. But that does not justify the irrational behavior demonstrated in this protest, in recalling the Korean ambassador, in threatening nuclear safety against Japan, in the abduction of almost 4000 Japanese fishermen with the unilateral declaration of the Syngman-Rhee line, or most recently in protesting directly on Japan's Tsushima. There are dozens more cases of such incomprehensible action. And purported "evidence" is moot at best from the stance of Korean sovereignty, as pro-Koreans willingly bend the truth to support their cause, while flat out rejecting any documents that refute their claim (call it "wishful thinking").

All arguments aside, the responsible thing to do is to take the matter to the International Court of Justice. This has been suggested by a number of arbiters, and Japan has proposed to bring it before the ICJ since 1954. Korea has to this day refused the proposal.

If the evidence supporting Korean sovereignty truly is so overwhelming, why not bring it before the ICJ, let the evidence speak for itself, and settle it once and for all? Is it really better to say "no" and instead carry out protests? More and more people now think this dispute is being used to distract Koreans from bigger problems, including the faltering economy and impending mortgage crisis. Or maybe it's just to appease the public into thinking their government isn't incompetent.

 

[kim0702a]

Thanx for the reply 'Guy'

Well. I guess Koreans will not go to ICJ dude.

Japan refuses to acknowledge that there is a dispute over Senkaku/Diaoyou. (with Russia) By definition, it does not want the issue to be dealt with the International Court of Justice.

Is this not similar to Korea refusing to have the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute dealt with by the IJC? How does Japan justify this?

Also, calling Dokdo/Takeshima as Liancourt Rocks is wrong, because Japan once tried to spread the name of Liancourt Rocks to make the world recognize Dokdo as a disputed area. Le Liancourt, a French whaler, thought he first discovered the islets in 1849 and named them after himself.

Read this.. if you still can't understand why Korea will not go to ICJ:
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page10.html

 

[guy]

You're missing my point. I don't care about the dispute, and I don't have a problem with Korea claiming sovereignty over the rocks. What I do have a problem with is how they are going about it by resorting "shock value" tactics, and legitimizing them by claiming that no one can possibly understand their emotional turmoil. It is utterly impossible to criticize the mere act of animal bludgeoning without being labeled "anti-Korea", "Japanese nationalist", or simply "racist against Koreans".

What do you do about ultra-nationalists who want to kill Japanese and take over the island (some are even suggesting to have "brother" North Korea nuke Japan)? What do you do about unrestrained nationalist ideology that produces things like this, even being taught to children?

View attachment 79926View attachment 79927
[the latter is one of dozens that were publicly exhibited in a Korean subway station]

--

However, for the sake of a discussion, I will entertain your arguments for a moment.

If the rocks weren't a disputed area, Korea and Japan wouldn't be having these disputes right now. The rationale for referencing the rocks as "Liancourt" is simply to allow for arbitration without giving preference to pre-supposed sovereignty through the use of either the Korean or Japanese names for the islands.

Pro-Korea supporters adamantly maintain that the rocks have always been Korean sovereignty, but there has not been any substantial documentation to this claim (if there were documents that undeniably proved this, sovereignty over the rocks would have been explicitly declared in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and we wouldn't have had to deal with the MacArthur Line, Rusk Documents, Fishery/Normalization Treaty of 1965, and so on).

As to the ICJ:

Taking a dispute to the ICJ is akin to a "gentleman´s agreement", and there is no guarantee that either the Korean or Japanese government would follow an ICJ ruling that was not in their favor. As responsive as these two governments are to public opinion in their respective countries on this issue, it is really hard to believe that either government would respect a ruling on the sovereignty of Dokdo that would go against popular national opinion.

From my observation of this dispute, it is the Korean public that has united in the fight for sovereignty over the rocks. Japanese are at best apathetic about the issue and would most likely not care if the rocks were ceded to Korea. Right-wing Japanese leaders and a number of Tottori-ken residents will likely continue to insist on their claim to the rocks, but they represent a vast minority in the issue, and would not constitute "popular opinion", except in the case of provocation. And Japanese news sources have been very careful to not incite unwarranted provocation (note "Afterwords").

The idea that Japanese are unilaterally claiming sovereignty over the rocks -- and therefore has no genuine interest in arbitration from the ICJ -- is mostly a political tool used by the Korean government to incite unchecked nationalism (possibly for reasons of distracting the public from more practical concerns, as I suggested). After all, why should Korea bother going to the ICJ when it already has control of the rocks through military occupation and inhabitation by two Korean nationals (I can only imagine they must be paid very well to live in such wretched conditions)? If the ICJ eventually found that sovereignty of the rocks actually belonged to Japan, Korea would be guilty of illegally occupying Japanese territory -- an act which in any other dispute would mean an act of war. As it stands, Korea has a lot more to lose than it has to gain by going to the ICJ.

Even if an ICJ ruling over Dokdo could be respected and accepted by the public and governments of both countries, there are serious mitigating circumstances that would make the Koreans rethink the wisdom of taking the issue to the ICJ. If past decisions of the ICJ are taken into account, it seems the ICJ does not take into consideration the concept of imperialist aggression, nor does it weigh judgements heavily on historical background.

Korea is keen on dismissing the ICJ's third party arbitration because it doesn't believe arbitration has any authoritative power. That's about the same rationale as refusing to go to court just because they wouldn't like the answer they hear. Given Japan would understandably have a similar reaction if it had to cede the rocks to Korea, but again it would be among a limited few, and far from a "public opinion".

But if not the ICJ, then who? It's clear that two governments alone cannot come to a bilateral agreement. If Korea refuses to allow arbitration out of fear of an answer that doesn't support Korean sovereignty, then would it be better to simply allow Korea to set the rules and force Japan to agree to Korean terms? The problem is that pro-Koreans believe there is only one "right" answer, that everything must be given to (or recognized as) Korea. It is this mentality that completely undermines any possibility of negotiation. If that were the outcome, you would set the stage to allow Korean ultra-nationalists to make similar claims on other islands such as Tsushima, that "according to Korean history" are part of Korea, but are in reality without a doubt Japanese sovereignty. Moreover, it would do nothing to ease tension, and would only recognize "harboring emotional hatred against Japan" as an effective method for "diplomacy".

The bigger picture is this: Korea is upset about a handful of sentences that are intended (but not even confirmed!) to be written in textbooks 4 years from now. The Korean right-wing would have you believe that this is nothing short of a precursor to another invasion from Japan. The thought that ICJ would be an ineffective arbiter "because will go to war against Korea if it can't write a couple sentences in its textbooks" is just outright childish.

 

[dietsunkists]

i never understood Korean people's mind. why do they have to be so aggressive and senseless. It's sad. They always have to kill or destroy something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

yeah, koreans sure are violent, not like those innocent japs who only want their voices heard.

 

[ASSASSIN27]

Not good...

Okay. I'm Korean and I understand the war vet's pain, but to kill Japan's national bird and lay them out on the Japanese flag is a bit much. Korean's are so kind and peaceful so it actually surprises me to hear about this public act of anger towards Japan. The most hateful thing I've seen in Seoul is "Fuck Japs" spray painted on walls in Hongdae, but this a on a whole new level. I guess I'm too young to understand the real hatred because I wasn't born and living in Seoul when Japan invaded, but I do remember when an old Korean couple started screaming "Get out of our Country" in Korean to my Japanese girlfriend on the subway one day. I guess if I was an elderly Korean person I would be more open and mindful of my Korean roots and culture, but I must admit that I never have paid much attention to Korean history. Ah well. I live in a new time and age and I also like Japan too.

 

[mgurusan]

It's not even the national bird. Well as much as I've gathered its called the "Korean Pheasant" vs. the "Green Pheasant" which is actually fairly ironic. And why does Korea care about what's written in Japanese text books. I could care less about Korean textbooks, regardless of how the information is put out, it's going to be taught the way of the country in which they occupy.

Such as the little "Colony of Corea" picture. How much stuff like that is actually taught in Korea? (yes, maybe that's a little extreme, but I'm sure all governments make up their own history.)

Anyways... History is told by the winner... and I doubt very much that Korea is going to win anything, regardless of their protests.

 

[vhschoi]

> There are many historical evidences that Dokdo belongs to (South) Korea.

No, all of the "many historical" are faked in 20th centuries. We can not believe them. Takeshima island is belong to Japan.
"Fake" and "Pirate" are evil Korean culture. We could find so many pirates copied foods and toys in Korea, they are originally products in Japan. Why Koreans stole Japanese cultures and the island Takeshima?

We can't believe this? We? You or japanese? If you won't believe that, just do it.

Dokdo is Korean Teratory for a long time and every person in the country knows it. Because Japanese had invaed the whole nation including North Korea. Many of Korean was killed during the occupation years of Japan.
Back in the past, Seoul was japanese teratory. I guarantee you can not imagine the slaughter in many times. Have you ever heard of "The ears grave", "The noses grave"? Korean remember about the slaughter. Never forget it.

Well. I want to tell you another episode. Ore day I purchased items in ebay from US, but it's a fake. So sad. Anyway United State of America is country of swindlers? I don't think so. It's a matter of ebay and person who sold a FAKE.

If you want to know truth, I'd like to recommand you to study history from 1 th century and 21 th century between Korea & Japan. Then you might be hear considering "Gando".

All that glitters is not gold.

Anyway I think this place must become a peaceful place from nation, poverty, race, religion or poltical ideologies.

Peace be with you.

P.S : My english skill is poor, so please tolerate me.

 

[triela]

The premise of this thread is noticeably biased, and strikingly naive.

You are trying to isolate the "territorial claim dispute" from the greater issue at hand, which is the longstanding (and relatively recent) historical and military turmoil between Japan and Korea. Of course it makes logical sense to take the dispute to the ICJ. The claim dispute itself is not the issue. It is easy for the Japanese to ignore the fervor behind the Korean claim beyond the facts or documentation, because they have no emotional stake in it. This is always the case for the dominant nation when two countries are dealing with such issues.

"Look, here are some old documents that clear up facts, I'm sure that will cure the decades and decades of bitterness between you."

You think disputes between Tibet and China resolve so easily? Disputes between upper class white Americans and inner city black Americans? Disputes between Northern Irish nationalists and the United Kingdom? In each case it is both easy and automatic for the dominant party to think, "Oh, boohoo, get over it! The issues are simple!" They're always simple to the ones without a deep and culturally emotional stake in a larger symbolic resistance.

 

[guy]

Do you endorse the behavior of killing birds then throwing them at embassies, as well as burning/soiling flags?

 

[triela]

Do you endorse the behavior of killing birds then throwing them at embassies, as well as burning/soiling flags?

What, is that question supposed to trap me or something? Of course I don't endorse those behaviors, from anyone in any country, protesting about any issue. The act, no matter how abhorrent, is indicative of a greater issue, and only a part of that issue is the actual territorial claim itself. If the Liancourt Rocks were not so tied to and reminiscent of the Japanese occupation, it would not incite such furor among the Korean populace.

Answer this question for me: If I agree that the prisoners held by the US military at Guantanamo deserve fair trials because that's what is in the Constitution (I don't, necessarily), do I automatically endorse their terrorist acts? Is the world so black and white where you live? Every decision so clear cut?

Every population of every country in the world is filled with at least a majority of irrational, self-serving and gullible people. This is why propaganda works so effectively, whether it's anti-American propaganda in fundamentalist Muslim regions, anti-Japan propaganda in Korea or even something as simple as negative campaign attack ads in US political campaigns. Even so, I don't simply discount altogether the deep-rooted sentiment of a certain group of people, even if it's partly sustained in younger generations by propaganda or leads a portion of them to do unreasonable things. The sentiment is there, and is widespread; therefore, I have to include it as an essential paramater in my consideration of things, because it is inseparable from the issue you are so pointedly and unproductively trying to deconstruct and pick apart into a one-dimensional topic.

You appear to be separately a student of logic and a student of history, but you are increasingly displaying that you are not a student of context or sociopolitics.

 

[ASSASSIN27]

you need to research your history. the first person in japan was korean and the the japanese language came from the korean language. you really shouldn't make statements like this if you don't know your facts.

> There are many historical evidences that Dokdo belongs to (South) Korea.

No, all of the "many historical" are faked in 20th centuries. We can not believe them. Takeshima island is belong to Japan.
"Fake" and "Pirate" are evil Korean culture. We could find so many pirates copied foods and toys in Korea, they are originally products in Japan. Why Koreans stole Japanese cultures and the island Takeshima?

 

[buttobi]

The act, no matter how abhorrent, is indicative of a greater issue, and only a part of that issue is the actual territorial claim itself. If the Liancourt Rocks were not so tied to and reminiscent of the Japanese occupation, it would not incite such furor among the Korean populace.

"A greater issue" is not only the one from the past but from the present.

There's racism in Japan, not against the black people or the Jewish but against its nearest neighbor, the Korean. It can't be denied that a fair part of Japanese people consider the Korean inferior and lower. Of course the Korean know it and don't miss any chance to show protest and inexpressible anger against the suppressors. They often resort to extreme, seemingly rather childish and irrational methods but somehow I understand they have no other options to show their honest feelings against such equally irrational prejudice as well as the irrational treatment they received in the past.　Are the Korean people so primitive as to think they are not risking international respect in protesting in such a childish method against the Japanese, not Japan? Surely not. As triela says the issue is multi-dimentional and deep-rooted. I dare say the life of birds is a trivial thing.

For the record, I'm not Korean.

 

[guy]

Answer this question for me: If I agree that the prisoners held by the US military at Guantanamo deserve fair trials because that's what is in the Constitution (I don't, necessarily), do I automatically endorse their terrorist acts? Is the world so black and white where you live? Every decision so clear cut?

Obviously the issue is not so black-and-white. However, allow me to explain the problem surrounding this larger issue:

The act, no matter how abhorrent, is indicative of a greater issue, and only a part of that issue is the actual territorial claim itself. If the Liancourt Rocks were not so tied to and reminiscent of the Japanese occupation, it would not incite such furor among the Korean populace.

Every population of every country in the world is filled with at least a majority of irrational, self-serving and gullible people. This is why propaganda works so effectively ... Even so, I don't simply discount altogether the deep-rooted sentiment of a certain group of people, even if it's partly sustained in younger generations by propaganda or leads a portion of them to do unreasonable things. The sentiment is there, and is widespread; therefore, I have to include it as an essential paramater in my consideration of things, because it is inseparable from the issue you are so pointedly and unproductively trying to deconstruct and pick apart into a one-dimensional topic.

Let's lay down the indisputable facts. Japan had a great many war crimes against Korea (and elsewhere), most significantly from the beginning of the 1900s until the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952. Current-day Japan does itself and the world injustice by failing to adequately educate its people about that period of its history (primarily by way of textbooks and museums, this is no secret). Anti-Japanese sentiments, as hotly displayed by Koreans, reflect this problem, and that in itself is very much justified.

Where things get very troublesome is when activists take that popular anti-Japanese sentiment (specifically, "we were the victims of imperialist Japan") in order to justify all sorts of other activities/agendas, like a "one size fits all" piece of propaganda for anything anti-Japan.

How exactly did Korea suffer when Japan annexed the Liancourt Rocks in 1905? There were no individuals living on the rocks (so nobody was killed on it). There is no record of Korean military presence near the rocks at that time which resulted in bloodshed. There was no apparent economic loss (in the fishing waters surrounding the rocks) due to the annexation. In fact, pretty much the only substantive rationale for Japan to annex the rocks was simply to build a lighthouse to provide navigation for its ships.

Now, modern-day Korea and Japan inject many new values into the rocks. On the pro-Korean front, Dokdo is a symbol of Korean sovereignty and sanctity of state against Imperialist Japan (which need I remind you has already been dissolved anyway). On the pro-Japanese front, Takeshima's fishing waters will allegedly improve the economy in the coastal region of Shimane prefecture. It is definitely arguable that the pro-Korean values far outweigh the pro-Japanese values in the post-war climate, no matter how intangible "emotional symbolic meaning" is (call Dokdo a memorial if you wish).

What I want to know is what connection there is between the present dispute over the rock and Japan's military past. When pro-Koreans talk about comfort women, the separation or outright slaughter of entire families, etc, the Liancourt Rocks themselves had no role in such warcrimes. So why in the current dispute is it so imperative to bring in all of the associated emotional baggage?

You may argue that the victimization was so severe that it is impossible to separate the issue -- and you would probably be right in identifying that mentality for a large population of Korea. But just because that's what people think (or are being taught to think) doesn't means it's necessarily right. You are right in that it can't be ignored, but you must learn how to analyze it properly rather than blindly follow it.

To put it differently: if Korea had sovereignty over the rocks once and for all, would it help heal wounds from WWII? I'm pretty sure comfort women and other survivors care more about having their stories heard with regards to correcting Japanese textbooks. There is some parallel between Liancourt dispute and WWII warcrimes: Japanese textbooks reflect how the government treats both issues. But while Japan's warcrimes are well documented (and therefore "covering up the past" is unacceptable), the ICJ can't even make a ruling on Liancourt's sovereignty. You would have people believe that the single anti-Japanese sentiment, based almost entirely upon Japan's warcrimes, is justified towards two separate issues: 1) correcting Japanese textbooks (in which case it is justified); 2) claiming sovereignty over Liancourts. Again, what exactly does Liancourt have to do with WWII?

The greater picture I was hoping to illustrate (by using this particular protest as an example) is a dangerous precedence that may be set if this behavior is legitimized. It's no secret that Koreans consume a large amount of anti-Japanese sentiments, but where do they draw the line?

"We can kill some birds because of what Japan did in WWII!"
"Dokdo is ours because of what Japan did in WWII!"
"Tsushima is our too because of what Japan did in WWII!"
"We must boycott Japanese products because of what Japan did in WWII!"
"We should teach our children to hate Japan because of what Japan did in WWII!"
"Sever all ties (political, economic, current and future) to Japan because of what Japan did in WWII!"
etcetera

If you don't draw a line at some point, then you allow that propaganda to spiral out of control. In effect, everything that Japan does (past present and future) would have to be compared to its military actions -- how fair is that? Believe it or not, there are many pro-Koreans that slander anime simply because of its Japanese origin (which "obviously" is connected to Japanese warcrimes), and reduce every otaku into a no-good hentai (other gems include r**ist or child molestor). Here's an idea: let's shut down AO because it promotes Japanese culture, and since Japan did bad things during WWII, the forum must be shut down to keep people from becoming Japanophiles.

And yet, it's scary to think that children are being taught that this is the right way to think about Japan.

So while I do not discount Korean post-war emotions, I am critical of its application in the modern context regarding Korea-Japan relations. It should be channeled to make positive contributions where it matters (including revising textbooks and rethinking Yasukuni). Otherwise it gets used haphazardly to justify anything remotely anti-Japanese, regardless of whether it has anything to do with Japan's warcrimes. Those that refuse to sort out the facts and instead believe that the emotions overrule all considerations do a disservice to the world (hell, even terrorists exemplify that kind of mentality).

--
As an aside: If it is so imperative to include WWII, consider this: Korea demanded US$364 million in reparations, but instead, Japan paid a full US$800 million in grants and loans in good faith. The money was given to the Korean government, but only 1/3 of it (less than what Korea originally demanded) went to families killed by the Japanese, and unfortunately none of it went to comfort women. Those women still have every reason to protest Japanese textbooks, but their anti-Japanese sentiment is heightened without giving due criticism to the Korean government. And what does the Korean government do? "Don't blame us, blame Japan!"

There's racism in Japan, not against the black people or the Jewish but against its nearest neighbor, the Korean. It can't be denied that a fair part of Japanese people consider the Korean inferior and lower. Of course the Korean know it and don't miss any chance to show protest and inexpressible anger against the suppressors. They often resort to extreme, seemingly rather childish and irrational methods but somehow I understand they have no other options to show their honest feelings against such equally irrational prejudice as well as the irrational treatment they received in the past.

Actually, most anti-Korean sentiment in Japan is a response to the anti-Japanese propaganda being distributed in Korea. Most Japanese don't think of Korea as either better or worse, simply different. For example, Zainichi are regarded as non-Japanese, but are not treated as second-class citizens (many Zainichi have become very powerful figures in Japanese companies, etc). As for racism, it's usually a miscalculation of Japan's xenophobia (which is actually an unfair term, because the better part of Japan actually welcomes foreigners, given that foreigners put in some effort towards learning Japanese customs). If anything, xenophobia is more pronounced in Korea, where foreigners are often blamed for a crime even if they were the victim ("foreigners don't understand Korean culture"), or where Korean-Americans are dismissed or even labeled chinilpa simply because they didn't grow up in Korea and therefore cannot understand anything.

In fairness, I suppose I should mention the 63 Korea-Japan student exchange programs that were cancelled (at the request of South Korea), with another 41 indefinitely postponed, in response to the recent dispute over Liancourt. If Japan was such a hotbed of anti-Korean racism, I'm dubious as to why they would have Korean children come to Japan on exchange, and why it wasn't Japan who chose to cancel the programs.

As I have posited elsewhere, such "childish and irrational" behavior is an indicator not of inborn/ethnic characteristics, but of greater social problems. Namely, Korea's crumbling economy (with nothing in place; another IMF scandal?) and the impending housing crisis. Using Japan as a scapegoat is an easy way for the ruling party to "keep the people united" (and distracted from bigger, more pertinant issues), and it demonstrates the infancy of the government, education, and media.

If you feel that the emotional investment is still the overriding "parameter", then you very well may be helping to build a higher and higher wall that separates Korea and Japan, which future generations may not be able to overcome.




And for the record, I never purported myself to be a historian or logician. You may not agree with my views but I think within the scope of intellectual discourse you should respond to my arguments directly rather than criticizing me personally. If the issue makes it utterly impossible for you (or anyone else regardless of opinion, for that matter) to not resort to one-liners and pot-shots ("sophisticated name-calling"), then I apologize for introducing the topic and will promptly request the removal of the topic.

 

[buttobi]

Actually, most anti-Korean sentiment in Japan is a response to the anti-Japanese propaganda being distributed in Korea. Most Japanese don't think of Korea as either better or worse, simply different. For example, Zainichi are regarded as non-Japanese, but (many Zainichi have become very powerful figures in Japanese companies, etc). As for racism, it's usually a miscalculation of Japan's xenophobia (which is actually an unfair term, because the better part of Japan actually welcomes foreigners, given that foreigners put in some effort towards learning Japanese customs). If anything, xenophobia is more pronounced in Korea, where foreigners are often blamed for a crime even if they were the victim ("foreigners don't understand Korean culture"), or where Korean-Americans are dismissed or even labeled chinilpa simply because they didn't grow up in Korea and therefore cannot understand anything.

In fairness, I suppose I should mention the 63 Korea-Japan student exchange programs that were cancelled (at the request of South Korea), with another 41 indefinitely postponed, in response to the recent dispute over Liancourt. If Japan was such a hotbed of anti-Korean racism, I'm dubious as to why they would have Korean children come to Japan on exchange, and why it wasn't Japan who chose to cancel the programs.

As I have posited elsewhere, such "childish and irrational" behavior is an indicator not of inborn/ethnic characteristics, but of greater social problems. Namely, Korea's crumbling economy (with nothing in place; another IMF scandal?) and the impending housing crisis. Using Japan as a scapegoat is an easy way for the ruling party to "keep the people united" (and distracted from bigger, more pertinant issues), and it demonstrates the infancy of the government, education, and media.

If you feel that the emotional investment is still the overriding "parameter", then you very well may be helping to build a higher and higher wall that separates Korea and Japan, which future generations may not be able to overcome.

I'd hate adding fuel to the fire since this is a sensitive issue for the Korean people, especially those brought up and living in Japan (Zainichi), but I would think it insincere or just too naive or innocent to clam there's no racism against the Korean among the Japanese. The term xenophobia (外国人嫌い) doesn't describe justifiably the anti-Korean sentiment many Japanese have towards Korean people. In fact in Japan the term xenophobia is used mostly for the people who are not comfortable with (white) westerners, and almost never used for those that disrespect other Asians, especially Korean. Legally Zainichi are not treated as second-class citizens but in everyday life they often encounter hardship and discrimination on every level. If you personally know a Zainichi, just ask him/her if he/she has never had a hard time at school or in his/her work place just because he/she is Korean. As one living in Japan, I've heard and seen innumerable times respectable Japanese people with common sense and fair judgement show disrespect towards the Korean in their act and wording. It's sort of scary that they seem to think it's an acceptable and even natural thing to do. One could compare Zainichi to the black people in the US.

I don't mean to add bad names to the Japanese people. I only think it fair to point out that the act of killing birds and burning flags, however ridiculous and irrelevant it may look to the third parties, is depicting deep-rooted mutual distrust and disrespect between the Korean and the Japanese.

 

[triela]

Current-day Japan does itself and the world injustice by failing to adequately educate its people about that period of its history (primarily by way of textbooks and museums, this is no secret). Anti-Japanese sentiments, as hotly displayed by Koreans, reflect this problem, and that in itself is very much justified.

Japan seems to do everything in its power to temper any issuances of official apology or responsibility for past negative military actions with retractions, euphemisms, contradictions and coverups. If Japan's war crimes are indeed far enough back in history for you to inisist that Korea move beyond them, why is it that Japan can't? Don't you think that Japan's full acceptance, contemplation and succession of its military past would be easier as the historically dominant country than Korea's moving beyond its past role as victim? Japan's continued disingenousness plays a direct role in Korea's inability to separate itself from its own past.

You mention Japan's inability to deal with its past with a phrase or two using words like "injustice" and "unacceptable", while for Korea, you dedicate a full discourse. Answer me this: Over time, what do you think would happen to ANY country with national pride, freed from domination by a next-door neighbor, in the face of neverending public condescension and internal denial by the dominator?

There is no fault in Korea for Japan's decision not to recognize a small, but ugly, part of its history. Here's the thing - there is absolutely much fault in Korea and absolutely some fault in Japan for Korea's current condition.

What I want to know is what connection there is between the present dispute over the rock and Japan's military past.

I'm surprised that you're asking this type of question. You describe the state of mind of many Koreans accurately, but you don't seem to understand. In my first post, I described the role of the dominant entity among a pair with a recent "dominator-dominated" history. Your question fits the bill perfectly - it is exactly what the dominant entity would fail to grasp. The occupation of Korea by Japan represents things that have been "taken" by the dominator: freedom, honor, land, women, etc. Since Korea has obviously not "healed" from issues of the past occupation (due partly to Japan's action or inaction), the "taking" of the rocks represents a re-ignition of those unresolved feelings.

You may argue that the victimization was so severe that it is impossible to separate the issue -- and you would probably be right in identifying that mentality for a large population of Korea. But just because that's what people think (or are being taught to think) doesn't means it's necessarily right.

Of course it's not right. The behavior of many Koreans, along with the reasoning behind the behavior, is wrong. The behavior of the Japanese government, along with the reasoning behind the behavior, is wrong. The outward effect of these behaviors results in controlled politicking by Japan (because the action is in the government) and potentially dangerous displays by Korea (because the action is in the general public). Naturally, any haphazard actions taken by individual citizens will always be volatile and possibly dangerous.

To put it differently: if Korea had sovereignty over the rocks once and for all, would it help heal wounds from WWII?

Not at all. What you fail to recognize is that losing the rocks will aggravate those wounds and probably set Korea-Japan relations further back than loss of the rocks by Japan.

If you don't draw a line at some point, then you allow that propaganda to spiral out of control.

So how do you actually go about drawing a line? You expect the Korean government to suppress actions of its own citizens in defiance of Japan? Of course not! Maybe you are interpreting my comments differently than I intend: I agree with you that some of the actions of the Korean public are not only hazardous, but may inspire more possibly violent actions in the future. Do I have a solution for a line to draw? No. But the solution must include some overlapping action involving both Korea and Japan. This is why I have been criticizing Japan (and you), for failing to see the necessity of Japanese action in this matter, because Koreans will not solve the Korean "attitude" issue by themselves no matter how much you analyze and analyze - the feelings have been entrenched so thoroughly that it's simply too late for that.

So while I do not discount Korean post-war emotions, I am critical of its application in the modern context regarding Korea-Japan relations. It should be channeled to make positive contributions where it matters (including revising textbooks and rethinking Yasukuni).

If you think that Koreans have any responsibilty to "channel" efforts of any kind to make some other country include facts in its own textbooks that the country itself deliberately eliminated, you have definitely succumbed to the dominator mentality.

If you feel that the emotional investment is still the overriding "parameter", then you very well may be helping to build a higher and higher wall that separates Korea and Japan, which future generations may not be able to overcome.

Smoking cessation is not achieved by simply by presenting smokers with an analysis of pros and cons and history of smoking. Terrorists are not righted by hoping their own leaders will educate them properly. You are focusing on a unilateral solution. Korea won't "solve" itself. I am just saying that the solution, whatever it may be, must be bilateral between both countries, and that the solution must primarily account for and address the reasons behind Korea's hostility.

 

[triela]

Actually, most anti-Korean sentiment in Japan is a response to the anti-Japanese propaganda being distributed in Korea. Most Japanese don't think of Korea as either better or worse, simply different. For example, Zainichi are regarded as non-Japanese, but are not treated as second-class citizens

Using Japan as a scapegoat is an easy way for the ruling party to "keep the people united" (and distracted from bigger, more pertinant issues), and it demonstrates the infancy of the government, education, and media.

Your staggering misconceptions of Japan's anti-Korean sentiment and wholesale labeling of Korea's government, education and media have exposed your true intentions.

You are right, there is no need for further discussion. Your academic treatise is poisoned by your naive nationalist assumptions. It's hard to believe that someone who has put so much thought into the matter is so blind to common sense.

 

[guy]

I'd hate adding oil to fuel since this is a sensitive issue for the Korean people, especially those brought up and living in Japan (Zainichi), but I would think it insincere or just too naive or innocent to clam there's no racism against the Korean among the Japanese.

If you personally know a Zainichi, just ask him/her if he/she has never had a hard time at school or in his/her work place just because he/she is Korean. As one living in Japan, I've heard and seen innumerable times respectable Japanese people with common sense and fair judgement show disrespect towards the Korean in their wording.

It's sort of scary that they seem to think it's an acceptable and even natural thing to do. One could compare Zainichi to the black people in the US.

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.

Your staggering misconceptions of Japan's anti-Korean sentiment and wholesale labeling of Korea's government, education and media have exposed your true intentions.

My intentions are to look at the actions and methodologies surrounding this issue, some of which do little towards rebuilding relations between the two countries (this particular protest was one which I believe does harm). In that regard I am critical about the source of and accountability for such actions. Unfortunately it seems that many people don't like hearing criticism, and instead would write off my opinion as Korea-bashing or outright racism (I assume your contention is that I'm being racist) -- as if I am only allowed to say positive things about Korea, and if I have anything negative to say, I am to keep silent.

The behavior of many Koreans, along with the reasoning behind the behavior, is wrong. The behavior of the Japanese government, along with the reasoning behind the behavior, is wrong. The outward effect of these behaviors results in controlled politicking by Japan (because the action is in the government) and potentially dangerous displays by Korea (because the action is in the general public).

So how do you actually go about drawing a line? You expect the Korean government to suppress actions of its own citizens in defiance of Japan? Of course not! Do I have a solution for a line to draw? No. But the solution must include some overlapping action involving both Korea and Japan.

You are focusing on a unilateral solution. Korea won't "solve" itself. I am just saying that the solution, whatever it may be, must be bilateral between both countries, and that the solution must primarily account for and address the reasons behind Korea's hostility.

Perhaps you did not understand my comments. I am critical of both Korea and Japan. Of course Korea isn't going to "solve itself". But Japan isn't going to "solve it for them" either (that is also a unilateral solution). Both governments have to owe up to their responsibilities. But while the inappropriate action of the Japanese government can be dealt with in court, the Korean government has refused to go to court and refuses to take a stance on the behavior of its people (instead all indications are that it encourages anti-Japanese behavior). I am upset that Japanese people are "forgetting" about Japan's warcrimes -- although that in itself is an incredibly complex can of worms that requires careful study. But I think the Korean response of instilling anti-Japanese feelings, from the streets to the schools, does far more damage long-term. Books can always be reprinted, lesson plans can be revised, even bad leaders can be voted out; prejudices usually last a lifetime (and without any dialog, they almost certainly will). Therefore my criticisms of Korea outweigh those of Japan (but I still hold both responsible).

Where would I draw the line? Condemn protests that are exessively brutal, beg the cooperation of the people to stop spreading vitriol everywhere with the understanding that diplomacy will address their grievences. Take the textbook and Liancourt issues to court, separately and in that order. Present the evidence and allow people's voices to be heard in that arena. Once rulings have been made on those issues, measure the remainder of problems and develop a roadmap for further consolation in accordance to the effects of resolving the aforementioned issues, with an emphasis on building a strong economic relationship that will allow both countries to hold something positive in common.

If not that, then what is the right answer? I cannot be critical of Korea refusing to go to the ICJ; I cannot be critical about its media injecting anti-Japan sentiments to an inordinate degree; I cannot be critical about the education that instills anti-Japanese beliefs in children; I cannot be critical about the government focusing on this issue while ignoring more immediate and potentially damaging domestic problems; I cannot be critical about the irrational behavior of certain protesters and the lack of any condemnation of said behavior... Instead, you would have me stand on the side and allow Korea to do and say whatever it pleases. Criticizing Japan is acceptable, while criticizing Korea is not: How will any problems be solved by creating double-standards mixed with (anti-Japanese) racism?

Like I've said before, I am also critical about many things Japan does. Curiously, I have debated with many Japanese and they have agreed that many things in Japan do need to be corrected. But my criticisms of Korea have been met with incredible hostility (and I am far from a unique instance). I am simply awestruck by the notion that Japan is solely responsible for all Korea-Japan problems, and that nothing Korea does, past or present, is wrong.

There are people who say Korea and Japan are like feuding brothers who are unable to remember that they shared their formative years. I cannot imagine how any differences can be resolved if both countries continue to point fingers and blame each other. Resolution can only come from cooperation, and what I currently see is not cooperation.

 

[triela]

Here are your so-called "criticisms" of Japan:

Current-day Japan does itself and the world injustice by failing to adequately educate its people about that period of its history

while Japan's warcrimes are well documented (and therefore "covering up the past" is unacceptable)

Japan did bad things during WWII

miscalculation of Japan's xenophobia (which is actually an unfair term

OK. So Japan "does itself injustice", some behavior is "unacceptable" and they have done "bad things" in the past. ...That's about it. For other issues, criticism of Japan is "miscalculated" and "unfair". Nice.

Here are some of your criticisms of Korea:

it demonstrates the infancy of the government, education, and media

Those that refuse to sort out the facts and instead believe that the emotions overrule all considerations do a disservice to the world (hell, even terrorists exemplify that kind of mentality).

So Korea has an infantile government, an infantile education system and infantile media. Not only do Koreans believe that "emotions overrule all considerations", but doing so likens them to terrorists.

Then you are called out about it: you restrict yourself to extreme conciseness and euphemisms in anything negative about Japan (just as Japan would do in matters like the textbook issue), and you tend toward overstatement and glorification of the complete idiocy of the Korean public.

What is your reaction?

Criticizing Japan is acceptable, while criticizing Korea is not

Innocence. You actually believe that your criticisms of Japan and Korea are on equal footing, that you are giving both countries exactly the same amount of consideration and sympathy, as a neutral party would. If someone points out any discrepancies, you suddenly paint yourself into a corner for some reason. If someone said, "The Great Wall of China is beautiful," and someone replied with, "That is true, but there are a few areas in disrepair," only a dimwit would come back with, "Fine! The Great Wall of China is ugly, are you happy now?"

Instead, you would have me stand on the side and allow Korea to do and say whatever it pleases.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the world you live in is black-and-white. When I say your analysis is flawed and biased, I must be saying that you should stand aside and let Korea run around screaming with burning flags. What a well-thought, sound conclusion! You must be correct, yet again!!

Your exaggerations are very tiresome. "I cannot be critical of this, I cannot be critical of that, I cannot be critical of blah, I cannot be critical of blah blah." You're like a kid whose mother refuses to buy him a piece of candy and responds with, "You want me to starve! You hate everything I do! You never give me anything I want!"

You assume that I'm saying you're racist. I never used that word in any of my posts. I called you a nationalist, and that's exactly what you are.

Curiously, I have debated with many Japanese and they have agreed that many things in Japan do need to be corrected. But my criticisms of Korea have been met with incredible hostility

NO SHIT. The way you criticize Japan is ALWAYS palatable, NEVER overstated. The way you criticize Korea is sometimes ridiculous, and often overgeneralizing.

I am simply awestruck by the notion that Japan is solely responsible for all Korea-Japan problems, and that nothing Korea does, past or present, is wrong.

So if I criticize the inconsistency and apparent bias of your statements, suddenly Japan is solely responsible for all Korea-Japan problems?? Seriously, do you know what black-and-white means? Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's actually getting funny to me now.

I am upset that Japanese people are "forgetting" about Japan's warcrimes -- although that in itself is an incredibly complex can of worms that requires careful study. But I think the Korean response of instilling anti-Japanese feelings, from the streets to the schools, does far more damage long-term.

Have you ever heard of cause-and-effect? Please, look it up in an encyclopedia when you can spare some of the precious time you spend carrier your Japanese banner with pride, pointing at the little children that call themselves Koreans. Historical evolution is not a series of independent, unrelated situations that just pop into existence for no reason.

Of course Korea isn't going to "solve itself". But Japan isn't going to "solve it for them" either (that is also a unilateral solution).

Um, I never said that. You must be replying to someone else. I specifically pointed out that a unilateral solution would not work.

Both governments have to owe up to their responsibilities.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. It is even specifically included in the block of text you were replying to. Even then, you didn't concede that you agreed with me, but instead repeated my own conclusion back to me, like you were trying to convince me of something! WOW.

You are also conveniently lumping me with Koreans that say, "DOKDO belongs to KOREA!! JAPAN is HORRIBLE COUNTRY!!" Your arguments work fine against people like that, because they say ridiculous things through their tunnel vision, things that are stupendously easy to refute.

If you would have people believe that you are 'sticking to the facts', the only logical conclusion based on your statements is that Korea is a significantly inferior country. At least own up to it. Tell me, once and for all, that it's what you believe, and I would actually have no argument with you. It would elucidate the impasse between us, and I would be absolutely comfortable conceding your thread to you, with no further replies from me.

 

[triela]

Since you seem to glaze over what I say and freely distort statements to your heart's content, I wanted to isolate an example that illustrates whatever it is you think it illustrates.

My statement:

Here's the thing - there is absolutely much fault in Korea and absolutely some fault in Japan for Korea's current condition.

Your response:

I am simply awestruck by the notion that Japan is solely responsible for all Korea-Japan problems, and that nothing Korea does, past or present, is wrong.

I am awestruck too.