I somehow would pass on Black Thunders on my previous stays in Japan. (Previously I was hooked on Look or Dars.) Maybe it was because they were so cheap? It was only in the most recent stay that I tasted one for the first time. They were quite tasty indeed!
0 ( +0 / -0 )
And Koreans in general are liars. South Koreans know it and admit it themselves : they cannot trust the lovey-dovey relation between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un because as Koreans, they have a very strong tendency to lie.
Which reminds me of this delightful quote from founder and CEO of Foxconn, Terry Gou:
[I have] great esteem for Japanese [businessmen], especially those who are able to disagree with you in person and not stab you in the back, unlike the gāolì bàngzi [a racial slur for Koreans].
30 ( +37 / -7 )
Japanese leaders have previously offered apologies or expressions of remorse, but many of the women and their supporters want reparations from Tokyo and a fuller apology.
Korea does not want an apology. What it wants is for Japan to be its sempiternal ideological punching bag, to have it prostrate itself before it ad infinitum. A country demanding such things cannot be taken seriously and must be disregarded.
President Moon Jae-in crediting her relentless advocacy for giving South Koreans the "braveness to face the truth."
That is a joke coming from a country which has yet to account for its own complicity and zeal in furthering Japanese imperial ambitions, to say nothing of its role in the contemporary global sex trade. Not only can they not face up to their own war crimes in Vietnam, they also pardoned nearly all Koreans convicted of war crimes in the Tokyo War Tribunal. If I recall correctly, the two they refused a pardon for had served in Korea itself. Which goes to show you that Koreans think it is perfectly fine to commit such acts so long as you do them abroad.
“She can shout no more and she never received a formal apology."
But her and the rest of her cohorts received them at least twice, as well as several expressions of remorse. What more do they want?
1991-1993 Japanese government investigation concluded that many of the women were recruited against their will, leading to a landmark Japanese apology, although the investigation found no written proof in official documents
But this contradicts the article’s statements directly contradicts the previous quote about this woman never having received a “formal apology”. My memory is a little fuzzy on this subject at the moment, but did Abe not pen individual letters of apologies to the surviving prostitutes or am I misremembering that?
Many in South Korea believed that Seoul's previous conservative government settled for far too less in a deal where Tokyo agreed to fund the foundation with 1 billion yen ($9 million).
And many in Japan thought that Abe conceded too much in that same agreement. Such is the nature of political compromise—it is a basic principle.
Why even bother negotiating with the Koreans at this point? Nothing will ever make them happy. Ironically, even if Japan did not exist, they would have to invent it, so integral is Japan-hatred in the modern Korean national mythos. To hate Japan is the reason for Korea’s existence.
33 ( +42 / -9 )
Korea’s aggressive stance now is a sign of denial and unwillingness to reconcile... which has routinely been the standard policy since the War.
Corrected your comment for you.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
How can brainwashed S. Koreans topple the political regime twice since 1948?
The first time at least was a military coup. Not exactly a people’s revolution.
But it is telling that Koreans never mustered enough support to topple their Japanese occupiers, high-profile assassination attempts notwithstanding. As somebody who has spent a fair amount of time researching related topics at the National Diet Library, I can ascertain that, contrary to popular belief, Koreans were mostly supportive of the Japanese. Perusing documents from the former Takumushō, one finds diplomatic cables relaying all kinds of interesting details about life in Chōsen. Most eye-popping for me were finding communiqués describing the fervent pro-Japanese patriotism held by many Koreans, especially in the north, rural areas, and on Jeju Island. One particular dispatch lamented that the pro-empire patriotism of Koreans outstripped that of ethnic Japanese. In one town where several IJA troops were being sent out to the Chinese front, the Koreans, this official reported, gave them a rousingly hearty send-off, while relatively few Japanese residents came to support. Another from the mid-1930s remarked that Koreans were mostly in favor of Japanese rule, save for the upper middle class and wealthy elites in the large cities.
You would think that if life in Chōsen were truly hell on Earth as it has retrospectively been portrayed, there would have been a massive and lasting popular upheaval against their rulers. But aside from the March 1st Movement and sporadic terrorist acts thereafter, there really was no organized group that effectively threatened Japan. (It is fascinating, though, the number of Korean historical magical realism films that portray the opposite have been created in the last couple decades.) The sad fact is the tales of Korean insubordination against Japan post-1920 are heavily exaggerated.
10 ( +12 / -2 )
So Japan would be going to war against a country capable of commanding US troops in wartime. Japan doesn't stand a chance if the US decided to sit out and not intervene.
This makes no sense. Why would Japan go to war with the ROK, especially since they are treaty allies and important parts of US strategy to check the PRC’s influence and military capabilities. Whether the ROK “commands” the US military (which the Moon administration has treated with ambiguity) or not is irrelevant. Even if they were not allies, Japan has not demonstrated even an inkling of wanting of going to war with the ROK. If anything, it has been a very (perhaps too) conciliatory a neighbor, despite the belligerence that the Blue House panders to its electorate in times of political and/or economic strife.
What sort of fever dream are you lost in?
7 ( +11 / -4 )
1.Economic sanctions don't work against Korea. Japan runs a trade surplus so Korea can sanction Japan, not the other way aroudn.
2.Koreans make up 25% of tourists in Japan, a visa restriction means Japan's tourism industry goes down by 25% overnight and Abe san bet on tourism industry to make up for the decline in manufacturing sector.
Considering that the ROK’s economy is sliding, a matter compounded by a birthrate somehow even lower than Japan’s, I think they have more pressing matters to attend to than hypothetical economic sanctions at this moment.
6 ( +11 / -5 )
*The ROK chief of staff has the wartime command of US forces Korea after the agreed OPCON transfer. Nowhere else on earth a foreign military has the wartime command of US troops** with the possible exception of NATO, but the NATO's supreme commander is always a US general.*
My understanding is that they would fight under separate and independent commands during wartime.
So why did the US agree to hand over the wartime command of US troops to Korea? This fact alone explains what kind of a military the ROK really has, for the US would never agree to hand over the wartime command of US troops to Japan. Why? Japan is not capable of commanding the US troops into war.
So if the ROK has this might foreign military contingent under their thumb, why are their leftists perpetually pushing for them to be sent away? And would not OPCON result in a diminution of the US presence? Even if the ROK were to be able to wield command of a significant portion of the US military, so what? I am struggling to think why this is anything to crow about. What are you expecting? That the ROK and US would somehow smite your ethnic/national rivals? Keep dreaming.
9 ( +11 / -2 )
Japan is no better no lower than anybody else.
By that same token, Korea is no better than anyone else. But you would never guess from the pervasiveness of Korean nationalists to dictate terms to their own government, who in their ugly rhetoric and single-minded belief in the superiority of all things Korean give the uyoku dantai more than a run for their money.
Their mindset is fixed in the 20th century when Japan was only second to the US in economic power, and refuses to face the reality of the 21st century where both China and Korea are militarily stronger to Japan.
China, sure. But your estimation of the ROK’s military strength is grossly exaggerated. Numerous rankings place Japan well within the top 10 and Korea out of its reach. But here is one you can read for yourself.
11 ( +17 / -6 )
Why should we? We all know he speaks Japanese. Perhaps more interesting is how we never hear in the Japanese media of Nishikori's English ability.
Why would that be more interesting? Has Japan turned majority Anglophone since I last lived there? Why should a Japanese make an especial note of his English ability?
I had a friend when I used to live in Canada who's half Chinese and would be always spoken to in Mandarin by Chinese people we meet and would be asked by my classmates if he could speak Chinese. I think this is not a case of ignorance but just a common case of curiosity. However, I would say that doing that during an interview is outright rude and ignorant
Was your friend also claiming to represent China in global sports? Why is it rude or ignorant for Japanese media to ask questions in Japanese to an athlete that purports to represent Japan? Seems like very reasonable behavior to me.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Oh boy, two articles on JT showing Repubs and Dems cooperating to reign in Trump who they see as dangerous and incompetent...
1.) Is this the same Congress that approved continuing funding for the Yemeni intervention last year?
2.) Is this the same Congress that lambasted Trump for wanting to pull out of the military quagmire that is Syria and Afghanistan?
3.) Are we talking about the same Yemeni conflict which was supported by the Obama administration, fought by the Saudis using over $100 billion of weaponry that the same administration sold to them over the course of eight years, and was excoriated in no less a bastion of the middlebrow left than The Atlantic Monthly as a conflict which represented the “graveyard of the Obama Doctrine”?
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Korea will never be happy, unfortunately. No matter the amount of redress or whether the Emperor himself apologized to each and every individual Korean. The truth of the matter is that this sense of victimhood is firmly etched into the national character and mythology as to be inseparable. To hate Japan has become a kind of cultural tradition there, a ritual that proclaims one’s Korean-ness.
Abe and the LDP will likely do nothing again except issue tepid warnings and so on. Meanwhile, the ROK and its global diaspora aggressively market their grievances to the gullible and opportunistic. Japan should take extreme measure, therefore, and simply cease the pretense of diplomatic relations with the ROK and sever them outright, or at least putting them on hold until a more reasonable government takes hold. (An unlikely possibility in the near future.)
18 ( +24 / -6 )
[I]t’s not just about military threats, it’s threats to the US & friends hegemony and the petrodollar (economic war), oh and that central bankster mafia as well.
-2 ( +5 / -7 )
The Japanese Army indoctrinated them and fought foolishly over a battles they could not possibly win. What did they expect the Americans to do? Say this is too difficult, I am going home?
By that same logic, what did the US expect the Japanese to do in the defense of their homeland? Would not the US—or the population of any nation—have fought against an invading force with equal tenacity, even if the odds were against them?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Everybody is wrong here. Trump certainly is with respect to Iran, which poses no direct or indirect threat to the US. (Its so-called ally on the Arabian Peninsula, however, is another story.)
But the intelligence services are also incorrect. (This would also not be the first time they have been proven incorrect. Remember Iraq? Or Panama? Grenada? Vietnam? Or Mosaddegh’s Iran? Overstatement of the Soviet Union’s capabilities in the 1980s?) How is the DPRK a threat and a major one at that? Its arsenal is clearly defensive. Even if it were to attack, Kim and his military advisors know that their country (and the ROK collaterally) will be effectively destroyed forever. They are violent, but not mad.
As for Russia, that is another overstated threat. With the US boasting overwhelming nuclear, technological, strategic, troop, and morale advantages, Putin would have to be suicidal to engage in aggressive action against the US. There is a threat, unfortunately, in Syria where US and Russian soldiers regularly scrape against each other. If something were to ignite into more serious fighting, that could prove very troubling for the civilians of those respective countries. (To say nothing of the Syrians who have already endured though the proxy war battlefield their country has been turned into. Why are we in Syria again?)
Supposing if Russia skewed the election, there are still several questions about that matter left unanswered. Considering that the US has levied more sanctions against Russia than during the Obama administration, is currently engaged in a nascent arms race, and has seen the diplomatic relations between both countries fall to levels not seen since the days of Brezhnev and Carter, what did Russia gain for its alleged tampering? Did they also rig it so two of the most unpopular presidential candidates in history would face off against each other, thus inspiring wide voter apathy? None of this makes sense.
Finally, as has been pointed out by many others, why does the US have carte blanche to interfere in the elections and domestic affairs of treaty allies and foes alike? Why is it somehow out-of-bounds when the favor is returned to it?
-8 ( +5 / -13 )
Of course! If they want to control the airspace above their bases, they should move to their own territory. WWII ended 70 years ago. That the US military still occupies parts of Japan is an anachronism.
I completely agree with you.
Headline ought to have read: “Guests generously allow host use of amenities of their own home.”
2 ( +8 / -6 )
I do want to clarify that I dont think 'assimilation' is a good word to use. I view assimilation as completely adopting another culture while sacrificing your own. I would never want anyone to do that.
You are connecting two completely different things here. My experiences and yours differ. I trust that your experiences are as true as mine.
But you said “absolutely”, which would indicate a belief that Brokaw’s comments are an absolute, or objective truth.
I also know from first hand experience that there are still large groups of different ethnicities that prefer to keep to themselves, not speak anything but their native language and not become part of America as a whole.
There certainly are such ethnicities, but Hispanics are not among them. Here in Southern California, the Armenian and Korean communities, for example, are rather insular, with little to no use of English among themselves, as well as comparatively low rates of exogamy. That is not the case with Hispanics. Some, like Argentines or Chileans, who have a high percentage of Caucasians among their population, often blend in to the general white population seamlessly. In my own experience, the only group of Hispanics I can think of with a tendency to insularity are Cubans. But they also tend to quickly adopt English and treat knowledge of it as a status symbol.
I've already explained this in detail.
The reason I used the word 'dumped' was because the kids did not want to participate and were literally "dumped" into a class to get them out of the way. JROTC instructors were not LAUSD teachers, they were retired military. They were not union and had little to no say in the matter. It was easier to make them deal with kids who didn't want to participate in PE and spoke little to no English than to argue with the PE teachers who actually had a say in the makeup of their classes.
Now I am truly skeptical of your claims. But before I talk about that, let me address again that you have not clarified the rationale for this action: if English was an impediment for these students to participate in a physical education class, where linguistic skills are not required in order to perform various exercises, then why would they be sent to a JROTC class, where presumably obeying verbal and written commands which require at least a modicum of English language skills is crucial to participation? That makes no sense. In fact, had you told me the opposite, that would have been credible.
Personally I can recall, once more, that my 9th grade physical education class which was taught by a white Vietnam veteran consisted of mostly non-English speakers. They were able to participate without problems in class; a few of them excelled formidably. I had never heard of a scenario requiring the removal of students from a physical education class (of all things) by virtue of their inability to speak English. Especially in an LAUSD school in 1992, which certainly by then had more than a trifling minority of Hispanic students at that time. (Hispanics, many of them presumably not being native English speakers, already accounted for about half of the district’s total students by that point.)
Moreover, the district was very accommodating towards them and, as I recall, were opposed to Proposition 187 and the resulting shuttering of ESL programs. Which brings me to another point. If these students were not able to participate in physical eduction classes because of their inability to speak the common national language, than why did staff from the ESL services not assist? Because they certainly did provide interpretive assistance for students that required it for some course or other, at least in my high school. I remember in my biology class in 10th grade, for example, there was a member of the ESL staff to assist a group of non-English speakers.
Then one must consider that such an action as you claim, even if it had been taken, would have likely resulted in a discrimination lawsuit.
Even thought (sic) I have tried to remain civil and have an intelligent, discussion with you, you still resort to claiming that I am simply lying.
I would have been inclined to believe you had you said you attended school in Northern California or Orange County, which back in the early 1990s was quite hostile to Hispanics (and Vietnamese). Anywhere but Los Angeles, much less an LAUSD school. Not only did I grow up in the same city, but also went to LAUSD schools, graduating only a handful of years after you did. Considering the demographical facts at the time, your story is highly implausible. There may possibly be some nuggets of truth buried therein, but they have likely been distorted for the sake of ideological pontification.
But returning to your point, you seem to confuse “civility” with “agreement”. I have been quite civil in return—I simply do not believe you, however. One can disagree and still be civil.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
There's one huge difference between you and I. I did not ever try to insist that your claims of your experiences were untrue. I'm only backing up my claims and my experiences.
But did you also not write that, “[Brokaw] is absolutely correct”? Such a statement does not seem to augur a mind open to the divergent experiences of others.
I'm sure that your experiences are just as valid as mine, but I can acknowledge that we don't live in one giant bubble where everyone experiences the same thing.
Perhaps you do indeed feel this way, though your somewhat inarticulate and inchoate comments would indicate your true feelings run contrary.
No, it means they literally "dumped" these kids into JROTC because they would fail PE otherwise. Nothing hidden in the meaning.
If lack of fluency in English precluded their participation in physical education classes, which consists of participating in activities that are not related to language skills, then why would they be “dumped” in JROTC where at least some skill in the language would be essential? I have no doubt that there were a significant amount of Hispanics in your JROTC class. That may have to do with Hispanics tending to be more supportive of US military service than some other demographics, rather than poor English language skills.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said. Bumbling bumpkins? The kids were refusing to participate. That's it.
I never said you called them that, nor does my previous comment even intimate such a thing. Rather, my point was that notwithstanding the hypothetical event that these students unmistakably demonstrated extreme ignorance or obstinacy against learning English, that such a scenario would not preclude them from participation in physical education. Are you sure that you yourself are fluent in English?
At any rate, considering that my period 4 physical education class in ninth grade was composed mostly of non-English speakers, you will, doubtless understand my disbelief.
It was easier for them to remove the kids from PE classes so the teachers could focus on the ones who wanted to participate. JROTC was apparently the easiest place to put them. Probably because the instructors were not teachers, hence not union and had less say in the matter.
This makes no sense. Why would physical education classes pose a problem for non-English speakers, but not JROTC? If anything, the opposite scenario would have been far more believable. Just considering the pervasiveness of Spanish-speakers in California, even in the early 1990s, it seems highly unlikely that there were not at least some students on hand to translate the physical education teacher’s remarks into English for the sake of the Spanish monolinguals. Given your claim of having “grown up” in Los Angeles, which in 1992 was already a vast enclave of Hispanics, both immigrant and US-born, I find your assertion all the more questionable.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I don’t care if you believe it.
I also would not doubt if you care if it is true or not.
I graduated high school in 1992. My JROTC class was were they dumped the huge number of Latino kids that refused to cooperate in PE. They required a translator because they refused to speak English. The same kids still refused to speak English the entire three years I knew them.
The fact that you used “dumped” already betrays your dislike of these people.
Also, I find it impossible to believe that these same students “refused to cooperate” for physical education classes. Even if they were indeed these bumbling bumpkins from deep in the heart of Mexico, what possible impediment could their lack of English pose in a physical education class? Do you need to know English in order to run laps or do jumping jacks?
In my high school, the only way you could avoid physical education was by either joining the marching band or JROTC. But you could not simply “refuse”. Those that did for whatever reason were punished by additional exercise, a trip to the dean’s office, or suspension. The only times I ever saw anyone refuse these classes were from students who were simply too lazy.
You can complain about cardboard cutouts and stereotypes all day long, doesn’t make them not true.
Some stereotypes are unfortunately true. However, some do age poorly in the face of change. Would anyone today continue to believe the old stereotype of Chinese neighborhoods beings dens of iniquity fogged by opium clouds? Your stereotypes of Hispanics are much in the same vein. While they may have had some truth to them 50 years ago, they were far from accurate in my high school days, and are certainly laughably outdated today. I presume you have had no further contacts with Hispanics individually or en masse since 1992. At any rate, you certainly sound out of touch with how they actually are in 2019.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Having grown up in Los Angeles, he is absolutely correct. I went to high school with a huge number of Latino students who not only did not speak English after being in the country for years, they flat out refused to.
I highly doubt they “refused” to. Your statement, which may possibly have possessed a measure of truth back in the 1970s or 1980s, is certainly no longer true in 2019. And I say this as somebody who is not only born and raised in Los Angeles, as well as currently residing in its environs, but as a Hispanic myself who works and lives with other Hispanics on a daily basis. Real-life Hispanics, mind you, not the cardboard-cut out stereotypes from an age long past which older whites seem to believe persist in our present day.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
I do not believe it to be a problem for Japanese reporters to ask questions in Japanese to an athlete that purports to represent Japan. Why is it that nobody bats an eye when Nishikori or your average Mongolian sumo wrestler gets pelted with questions in Japanese?
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Brokaw was right and should not have apologized.
I am Hispanic, grew up in a formerly Hispanic-majority neighborhood to immigrant parents, and am confronted with Hispanics in real life on a daily basis. Brokaw’s comments, while arguably well-meaning, are false.
These claims about Hispanics not properly assimilating or refusing to learn English always leave me puzzled. Not only do most immigrant children end up speaking English only, even the ones that claim to be “bilingual” often are capable of speaking only a kind of pidgin Spanish, and are utterly unable to read or write the language, which can make for entertaining verbiage in any number of advertisements and commercials aimed at US Spanish-speakers, but clearly devised by people whose command of the language is, to state it generously, only a tenuous one. One must also consider that the likes of Univisión and Telemundo have struggled with retaining younger, US-born audiences, who often shun their programming in favor of English-language networks.
Moreover, the influence of the Spanish language is, arguably, on the wane in the US, even among immigrants. I cannot tell you how often it occurs when people who are obviously native Spanish speakers who at best only have a rudimentary grasp of English refuse to speak their maternal tongue with me, even if doing so severely hampers their ability to communicate effectively.
It also seems to me—and this is just a personal observation for which I am unable to provide statistics to confirm—that immigrant children born in the last 20 years tend to be mostly mono-lingual in English and have, at best, a very fleeting grasp of Spanish, if that. Back when I was a child in the 1980s, it seemed most children were like myself, able to converse fluently in both languages. (I myself was not permitted by my parents to speak English at home.) Now it is comparatively rare to find such children. Even among those that do, they often tend to lose their grip on Spanish by their high school years, presumably out of peer pressure lest they be thought of as “paisas” or “nacos”. There is also a curious backlash amongst a certain faction of politically-engaged youth of the typical ideological persuasion who justify their rejection/ignorance of Spanish by claiming it to be an “oppressor” or “colonialist” language. (Why they therefore only speak English when it could be argued that it, too, is guilty of these supposed crimes, instead of Nahuatl or Quechua remains unanswered.)
If anything, Spanish has suffered a remarkable erosion deep into Spain and Latin America itself, especially acute in the past decade even in publications of literary merit. It is now commonplace to find publications like El País (which is something like the Spanish language equivalent to the New York Times with respect to prestige and political bent) supplanting existing Spanish words with crude borrowings from English (e.g. “mítin” instead of “junta”, “impeachment” instead of “impugnación”, “internet” or “web” instead of “red” or “red cibernética”, etc.), even when the replaced words are themselves of common usage.
So, again, when people like Brokaw claim that Hispanics do not assimilate enough, I must claim the opposite. If anything, there appears to be among many a lingering collective and perhaps unconscious sense of shame about their backgrounds, which leads them to overzealously assimilate themselves, to the extent of willingly abandoning their own heritage and traditions.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
The US can speak of its criminal system that has innumerable loopholes and where people have been killed with the death penalty and over time it has been shown that they were innocent.
There are Americans who believe they are the kings of the world, if one is wrong, they will pay the consequences.
I have traveled to Japan 3 times and I have never had a problem, of course, I behave civilly. They have a wonderful country, I am amazed when I read some very hard comments with Japan, maybe some of you would have to travel to Europe or the US to see the reality that we have there.
Nothing to add other than I agree with your every word.
5 ( +11 / -6 )
it certainly was enough to win the house and convincingly at that.
Of course, in time-honored American fashion, these results could very well become meaningless by November 2020. People vote all the time for local politicians of one party, then vote for a presidential candidate from the opposite party. Off the top of my head, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all were re-elected despite the opposition party holding a majority in one or both houses of Congress.
if youd (sic) told me that Hispanic (sic) had voted say 40+% Trump, then that would be impressive. If you look at the stats its the womens vote accross all races that bascially defeated the white mens vote (majority Trump votes)
This should tell you that it wasnt any one race that won the Dems the house it was the womens vote, its not difficult to understand why
Did not a majority of white women vote Trump in 2016? I believe that just over half did.
I am presuming you may not be from the US, or understand how the US electoral system works. But 31% in 2016 was no negligible amount in a representative democracy. Had either McCain or Romney polled that strongly with Hispanics, the Republicans might have been able to at least cut Obama down to a single term. Tellingly, Hillary Clinton polled sluggish numbers among Hispanics, at least comparatively to Obama and especially her husband. The US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, for example, poured some withering invective upon her and her campaign in the days following the election, complaining that they felt that Hispanics had been being slighted by the Clinton camp. While no single race is responsible for electing Trump (if anything it was a collaborative effort), it may very well be that a single racial demographic cost Clinton her election.
Looking forward to 2020, one must admit that the US general public has a very short attention span, is incapable of recalling crucial details of even very recent history, and in all likelihood will forget this entire shutdown fiasco—which was contrived by both parties. Given the glut of Democratic candidates for the White House, which will potentially result in vicious internecine sniping during the primaries, as well as the resentment already manifest in certain quarters that one particular candidate is apparently being groomed for a party coronation à la Hillary Clinton and you have a situation where Trump may just eke out another unlikely victory next year.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
within 15yrs from 1929 invasion of China till end of WW2 the IJA slaughtered over 12 million people majority of them civilians
This is, quite honestly, a gross exaggeration. If they were slaughtering civilians with the impunity you claim, then why did the Empire of Japan, at least initially, enjoy the support and cooperation of the peoples in their occupied territories? The main reason these populations turned on Japan had less to do with mass murder and more with the fact that it was quickly becoming apparent that they had bet on a losing horse, as it were.
On top of that, the “fog of war”, entrenched mutual racism, and bitter national rivalries all conspired to draw out a singularly violent war. The Kuomintang and CCP were notorious for meting out brutal punishment to entire villages of their own ethnic kin for the sake of perceived strategic advantage, or simply as a result of the internecine warfare between both factions which ran concurrently with the first half of the Japan-China War.
Japanese were slaughtering themselves under the command of shogun long before westerns even set foot in Japan. Japan throughtout its history is just as guilty of barbaric slaughter than any other country
I think what the other commentator was referring to was Japan’s history from the Meiji through the early Shōwa eras. In which case it was a case of colonize or be colonized. It was a brutal game of statesmanship and statecraft that Japan played well and which mirrored in many key aspects the rise of the US. However, it arrived too late on the scene, contended with ugly racism directed against it, and was scuttled by international rivals which successfully drained it of manpower, treasure, and resources in proxy wars, then finally baited it into a war.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
31% does not represent a majority, doesn't even represent a larger minority,
Quite true. However, it appears that you may be ignorant or not familiar with how US presidential elections work. While a candidate who boasts only 31% support of Hispanics would be fatal for a presidential candidate in a direct democracy, it is enough to secure a win in a representative one.
Had rural whites alone or even all whites, male and female, voted for Trump in 2016, that likely would still have precluded him a place in the Oval Office. This demographic would have to contend with being dispersed among various voting districts where they may hold only a fractional majority, or be in the minority outright. Additionally, you have a reality where this demographic is also in bitter ideological feuding amongst one another in various districts and states. Therefore this pro-Trump faction would require at least a nominal pocket of support from other key demographics. They managed that feat in places with significant and growing enclaves of foreign-born Hispanics: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, and the Deep South. In areas where voting was down to a razor-thin margin, it took only a couple hundred or so Hispanics in each district to turn the vote in Trump’s favor, thereby ensuring their state would allow its electoral votes to him.
Believe it or not, there not a statistically insignificant number of Hispanics who are unhappy with the Democratic Party for a variety of reasons, and are willing to stand behind Trump—self-evident flaws and all.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
You made your bed, Britain. There's always the option of not doing Brexit, like the majority of Britains (sic) now want, but nope... pride and all that.
Polls prior to the Brexit vote of 2016 also showed a discernible preference for remaining in the EU among the electorate. Of course, we all know now how that turned out.
Whether Brexit is “right” or “wrong” is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that a clear majority favored leaving the EU. It is insulting in the short term to ignore this majority, as well as damaging to the democratic process in the long term to insinuate that the Brexit referendum of 2016 was not already a “people’s vote”. Or does the UK only honor elections where the electorate faithfully obeys the dictates of their social betters?
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Hatoyama and his gang were the lamest flip-flopping ducks ever. They didn’t need a helping hand from the US to implode on their own.
Perhaps, but the US certainly played a very significant role in his cabinet’s collapse. I refer you to R. Taggart Murphy’s Japan and the Shackles of its Past for more details on this shameful meddling into a treaty ally’s government.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
This is true. My point was, as obvious as Trump's lies are, Trump's base still fails to recognize them for what they are and worse, believes them to be honest truth and the path to a greater America. He is able to do this because the majority of his base is under-educated American citizens who don't understand the concept of formulating one's own opinion.
True enough. But I do not know if lack of education is the problem. Because I can certainly attest to knowing quite a few college-educated types, many sporting masters and doctorates from some tony institutions of higher learning who are incapable of thinking critically or independently.
That or they play into Trump's scheme because of their self-motivated morals and unfortunately for the majority, these include racist ideologies.
I am personally skeptical of Trump’s racism, despite the claims one hears in the news. He is sort of an inverse of Obama, his negative image in the sense that like his predecessor in the Oval Office he is given to making broad, sweeping, but ultimately ambiguous statements which can be interpreted to anybody’s liking. He has never said anything explicitly racist, but what he apparently intimates sets white nationalists and social justice warriors alike foaming at the mouth. Much of what he says is rather more tame than what I was used to hearing in California from the likes of Pete Wilson, Daryl Gates, Bob Dorman, et al during the 1990s.
Additionally, a much-overlooked detail about Trump’s supporters is that a significant number of them are Hispanic, especially among (odd as it may seem to some whites) foreign-born US citizens. Remember that he was a Republican who boasted the widest margin of support among Hispanics since George W. Bush. Although the story that made the rounds post-election was of poor, rural whites carrying Trump to the White House, that result would have been impossible without the 31% of Hispanics supporting him as well.
There are quite a few Hispanics, including foreign-born ones who are actually in favor of a border wall, aghast at the trans phenomenon and what they perceive as attacks on the traditional families by the left, and were displeased by Clinton’s bumbling outreach to them. However, given the divisiveness of their views, few of these people are willing to ever speak on the record about their political inclinations. But being Hispanic myself, I know quite a few of these people personally.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Posted in: The 'takamikura' (throne) and the Imperial Regalia are based on mythology, and they will be used to demonstrate the legitimacy of the emperor as a descendent of the god. This violates Article 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the emperor derives his position from the will of the people.
Imperial Regalia Three Sacred Treasures of Japan, Sword Kusanagi (草薙劍), Mirror Yata no Kagami (八咫鏡), Jewel Yasakani no Magatama (八尺瓊勾玉). The regalia represent the three primary virtues: valor (the sword), wisdom (the mirror),…
Posted in: The 'takamikura' (throne) and the Imperial Regalia are based on mythology, and they will be used to demonstrate the legitimacy of the emperor as a descendent of the god. This violates Article 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the emperor derives his position from the will of the people.