LeChatBotte comments

So by that rational, you'll adopt the approach to non-Japanese people, of which you yourself are one, and give yourself a hard time for being what you are?

How the heck you came to that conclusion is beyond me. No one is condoning racism in any form.

I have spent many years in Japan - wish I had stayed there longer actually - and it is a different culture and a different people. If you want to stay in Japan - like any other place that is not of your own culture - you may want to try and understand them and their customs. No matter how clumsy, this sign is an attempt at showing goodwill.

Seems a lot of people come to Japan harbouring a lot of expectations that are not always met and start lamenting about it.

I have moved - twice - to a foreign country myself and adapted to the local customs. As the saying goes, it's not about what Japan can do for you. Second, you would like for it to improve and are welcome to help the place improve with your own awareness initiatives. If not, like people say here in the US, if you don't like the place, you should go to a place that makes you happier.

smithinjapan

if you akin someone saying they don't like another's song to the slaughter of MILLIONS of people

This is not just "another's song" but a national anthem. He's just expressing primal hatred resulting from an education based on ideological brainwashing.

Funny you should mention the slaughter of millions of people hen talking about Communist China. I wonder what is behind that quasi-adoration for Mao Zedong ....not.

And yes, it is actually about marking the difference between the Japanese athletes being able to take the higher road and that really classless Chinese delegation.

If I were playing the Chinese and Korean game, I'd say he hasn't apologized enough

Some people are not only overreacting, they're being ethnocentric here.

This is Japan folks, and it takes more to be a Japanese than just speaking Japanese or just being born here. And it is cultural, not racial.

Obviously this establishment is just making an effort at being friendly the best way they knew how to. While you would like them to become a bit more aware of international sensitivities, you cannot expect it. Look at it this way: I've spent 10 years in the Midwest and have seen quite a few local employees from big companies sent to "cultural diversity awareness" class too.

“The most common reason for the unfavorable impression of China among the Japanese public was ‘China’s actions are incompatible with international rules’ at 55.1%,” Genron NPO and the China Daily said in a joint statement.

“On the other hand, ‘The Diaoyu/Senkaku islands’ (64%) and ‘historical understanding’ (59.6%) were the two prominent reasons for the unfavorable impression of Japan among the Chinese public,” it said.

The difference between educated people living in a democracy and brainwashed masses under a communist regime. China backed into a corner by its own propaganda machine working too well.

Europeans did not slaughter 20 milllion chinese. Imperial army did. Of course you don't find that documented in the Japanese history books.

Since you're into numbers, it is estimated that over 40M Chinese were slaughtered during your own "Cultural Revolution". Indeed look to European or US history books for true accounts.

Communist propaganda machine at work. Here's from an article I thought was unrelated. Anyone see a pattern?

These are people who believe you invent your own truth by saying the same thing over again and again with the utmost petulance. Admiral Turner Joy, who headed the UN delegation to armistice talks in Korea reported that Chinese and North Korean emissaries got their way by being as wearisome as possible. They repeated their demands — however outlandish — until their UN interlocutors capitulated just to shut them up. Any parent with a bratty kid can relate.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/exposing-chinas-provocations/

lasolitaria

I'm afraid you're oversimplifying things. Those three words are not a slogan but founding principles of the Republic. The Revolution was not purely about "equality" in the marxist sense but about abolition of privileges earned by birth. Trust me, French society is in many ways less "egalitarian" than you may think.

How does the fact that other people wear religious symbols stop my freedom at all?

I am not going to attempt to explain existentialism to you because I most likely do not qualify to do so. Just ask yourself this: why do you need to wear visible signs of your faith, when as many on this forum noted, your God is in your heart. And again, the ban is a ban in public places; public places are funded by the State and there is separation of the State and Religion in the French constitution. It was challenged at the European Court and upheld based on a "certain idea of living together".

lasolitaria

It's not surprising that this happens in France, since they strive for equality rather than freedom. This is where egalitarianism eventually leads.

You seem to misunderstand it. In "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" liberte, i-e freedom comes first. Now remember that your freedom stops where the others' start.

Now as a couple of commenters noted, there are bans on the hijab in quite a few countries beside France, including some more progressive, Muslim-majority countries. The hijab is a cultural matter, not a religious one.

The university medical departments at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have got to be the best in the country when it comes to research on the long term effects of radiations.

Some very good authentic Japanese restaurants in Japantown, SF. Some really great izakaya and an awesome yakitori too in NYC. Otherwise the majority are Chinese or Korean-owned and are pretty awful. In France, in Paris near the Opera, quite a few authentic Japanese restaurants and one ramen shop where I could see a line every time I drove by.

The question is very badly formulated. The ban is valid in pubic places and based fundamentally on separation of state and church since in France, public places - like public schools - are funded by the state. The wearing religious symbols in private religious schools doesn't come under this law.

It is obviously not a matter of race but a cultural one, as separation of church and state exists in most Western democracies.

On the other hand, many countries in the Middle East have their own dress code, rules and regulations so I don't see why you should not follow the Law of the Land when you come to a Western country like France.

Frungy

You're on to something. The 50 cent army can't really provide their minions proper documentation without contradicting their guidelines and the rest blissfully ignore facts so they satisfy their misplaced egos with their usual chest thumping.

Had Japan stayed content with what they had, the US recognized their "special interest" in China with the Lansing-Ishii Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing-Ishii_Agreement and the Treaty of Versailles signed by the Allies transferred all German possessions in China - called by some "little enclaves" - to Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#British_aims

SamuraiBlue

The US started a full embargo on Japan only after Japan moved in on France's colonies in what they called Indochina at the time.

turbostat

You're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. No one is excusing anything.

If you look at a map, you will see why Japan tried to secure Korea. There's also the question of resources.

And it's not about "Euros are doing it", it's about being the only remaining country in Asia to not have been colonized and to first try and stay that way. And yes, if they had only tried to stay that way, they wouldn't have met the fate they did in WWII

European powers took over some enclaves in China

And the same people go complaining about "revisionism" from Japan? Check out what the Chinese consider the start of the "century of humiliation". And yes, it includes contributions from Japan too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

Other major events often cited as part of the "century of humiliation" are the unequal treaties of Whampoa and Aigun, the Taiping Rebellion, the Second Opium War and the sacking of the Old Summer Palace, the Sino-French War, the First Sino-Japanese War, the British invasion of Tibet,[5] the Twenty-One Demands by Japan, and the Second Sino-Japanese War. In this period, China lost all the wars it fought, often forced to give major concessions to the great powers in the subsequent treaties.[6]

Oh and yeah, a few "enclaves" in South East Asia too. Nothing to be concerned about, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Southeast_Asia#European_colonization

From the end of the 1850s onwards, while the attention of the United States shifted to maintaining their union, the pace of European colonization shifted to a significantly higher gear. This phenomenon, denoted New Imperialism, saw the conquest of nearly all Southeast Asian territories by the colonial powers

Nenad Jovanović

Again, people forget how the world in that time looked, and how majority of Asia in that time were under colonial rules of western countries, and China, totally incompetent to deal with them , so, Japan only solution is to make it self Asian power

Very good point. Not only was China totally incompetent, it was divided in concessions by western powers. The rest of Asia was already colonized. Japan was probably the only non-western power to not only not have been colonized but to have been able to stand on equal footing with them. The only way to stay that way and survive was to become stronger.

Absolutes like "good" or "bad" only exist in childrens books and communist propaganda.

He urged pragmatic cooperation, although he noted a growing sense of “Korea fatigue” in Japan over the criticism from Seoul.

"Korea Fatigue" not only from Japan but from pretty much everyone following Asian geopolitics. Add to that a sense of hijacking of US national politics with these statues of "comfort women" popping up here.

hidingout

Do the Japanese make a point of hating on America? And bringing up the atomic bombings at every (flimsy) opportunity? Do they attempt to hinge current relations on receiving (another) apology and (more) money from America?

The survivors of the atomic bombing want what happened to them to serve a noble cause, that of a world free of nuclear weapons.

This below is just passing down hatred from one generation to the next.

"Koreans, women and men, were dragged away by the Japanese military. I want the pope to amplify this message for future generations.”

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/former-korean-sex-slaves-to-meet-pope-in-seoul

Lee Yong-soo hopes a meeting Monday with Pope Francis will provide some solace for the pain that still feels fresh <...> "Koreans, women and men, were dragged away by the Japanese military. I want the pope to amplify this message for future generations.”

That's obviously not looking for solace but looking to advance her government's political agenda

I do not see the contradiction between committing to lasting peace and strengthening one's defenses with a neighbor like China. In fact, it's perfectly logical; peace has a price.

zichi

Not sure what kind of revisionism you are attempting but even with the Japanese attack on America, Japan attacked a number of other countries, including several under the control of Britain.

And I am certain you remember that Japan was an ally of Britain, France and the US during World War I and obtained most of Germany's concessions in China thanks to that.

OssanAmerica

"China has ordered the country’s television broadcasters to air “patriotic” or anti-fascist series for two months from September, reports said, stepping up its propaganda efforts.."

Anyone else see the sheer hypocrisy in this sentence?

Indeed. Just consider the definition of "facism". Me thinks the CCP most perfectly matches it somehow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascists sought to unify their nation through an authoritarian state that promoted the mass mobilization of the national community[5][6] and were characterized by having leadership that initiated a revolutionary political movement aiming to reorganize the nation along principles according to fascist ideology.[7] Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation,[5][8][9][10] and it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[11]

He said diplomacy must be encouraged so that listening and dialogue replace “mutual recriminations, fruitless criticisms and displays of force.”

Here's to hope they listen to him. Those principles don't apply only to their position vis a vis North Korea (hint).

Another day another attempt Correct.by the 50 cent army at clouding the minds of people without a conscience. A quick look around dictionaries will tell you that terrorists aim at creating fear/terror by targeting non combattant enemies, in other words, civilians.

sangetsu03

There are laws which govern warfare, and when the soldiers of either side disregard these laws, then they become terrorists.

Correct. And these laws/rules of engagement/Geneva convention dictate roughly that civilians should not be targeted. For those who think all is fair in war, others agree with you and are called "freedom fighters" by their countrymen.

The Kamikaze were just an awful waste of their best resources from the strategic perspective: throwing their talented pilots at military hardware was definitely not the best idea. On the other hand, kids growing in times of peace become apathetic and lose any sense of patriotism. They need to be reminded that they're enjoying peace today because their ancestors made the sacrifice of their lives for it. In other words, don't ridicule the courage of those pilots; the people who ordered them at the highest level were the guilty ones.

hatsoff

It would have been a nice gesture to return the artifact (in the same way that returning the Elgin marbles to Greece would be a nice gesture from the UK). Unfortunately, the name of the Chinese organisation has left this dead in the water. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

Indeed the only way it would have been more obvious is if they had named themselves the Chinese Federation of Japan Give Us More Money (Please?)

“What we try to recover is not just the relic itself, but also a symbol of international justice,” it quoted CFDC president Tong Zeng as saying.

Having China and "International Justice" in the same sentence just makes me laugh

Suin Kim,

How about Japanese guideline? It seems you believe Japanese claim is more valid without knowing exactly how Japanese people are guided by their government.

Apparently again, your own assumptions. Whoever I believe is right doesn't even matter; but I back Japan's position in settling the matter in the Court of Law, at the ICJ.

And yes, the article I sent backs my own assumptions and those of many people:

Bringing the row to the ICJ comes with complications but in the long run might be the only feasible way to resolve the dispute.

Suin Kim,

Your elevating your own assumptions to facts doesn't make them more facts. And your inability to consider that other people might actually have different opinions - and they could be more valid - has characterized most of the discussions I've had with Korean or Chinese people following their governments' guidelines for online discussions.

Indeed Korea being afraid to go to the ICJ is my own assumption. But it's a point of view shared by quite some people apparently: http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/the-icj-and-the-dokdotakeshima-dispute/

Moreover, South Korea’s refusal to even consider bringing the case before the ICJ ironically bolsters Japan’s position (albeit not legally) because it can be interpreted that Seoul fears its legal claim may not hold up after ICJ arbitration. This perception is strengthened further as South Korea tries to actively assert its sovereignty through steps to solidify its administration of the islands.

And indeed, Takeshima was not "returned" to Korea like you said (see OssanAmerica's previous post)

Suin Kim,

I will give you that, I am not a historian and will never pretend to be so I can't say I thoroughly understand the Japanese psyche. But it seems that instead of understanding it yourself you are just making your own assumptions and deriving your own conclusions from them:

When Japan says “Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan.”, it means it was Japanese land even before Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo.

it would be so obvious Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo would be easily turned out to be illegal because Dokdo was Korean land then.

If it would be so obvious that Japan's claim would be easily turned, why not go to the ICJ and settle things once and for all? What is Korea afraid of?

Suin Kim,

If Dokdo was Japan’s an inherent land, why did Japan incorporate it on the basis of terra nullius? Does it make sense? In fact, Japan had never owned Dokdo prior to 1905

It seems you are a bit confused on the definition on "inherent territory", If territory like Takeshima is recognized by the International Community at the time as "terra nullius" i-e belonging to no one, it can be acquired at that time and if Japan asserts sovereignty on it, it can become part of her "inherent territory" (in 1905). There is no contradiction there.