[Apollo]

I've always found it strange how a great deal of time was devoted to World War 2 in my British education. Easily more than any other historical period. But almost nothing about Japan's involvement. It was all about Europe. Though this could have just been my school's decision, of course. Does Japan feature in the German education in any detail?

Of course not. There's no reason to go over japanese atrocities in great detail when german atrocities are available. The object of the lesson is not to give a comprehensive overview of what happened in WW2, but to make absolutely clear why we cannot allow any of it to be repeated.

I think it's important for people to understand just how horribly ****ed up WWII Japan was. The Rape of Nanjing can probably match the Holocaust for sheer barbarism, although it didn't kill nearly as many people.

Aside from that, I agree with most of your points. We shouldn't feel personably responsible for the past atrocities of our governments and citizens, but we should remember them clearly and with great disdain.

[Lorric]

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/04/24/2013042401169.html

Abe Denies Japan Invaded Asian Neighbors

In a further lurch to the far right, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told lawmakers on Tuesday that he does not believe Japan's occupation of other Asian countries during World War II can be considered "invasions."

Abe claimed there are no set international or academic definitions of the word. "It depends on the point of view of individual countries," he said, referring to a statement in 1995 by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, which apologized to all Asian victims of Japanese aggression and from which rightwingers are scrambling to distance themselves.

Japan occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945 and invaded China and several Southeast Asian nations during an aggressive expansion to create what was billed as the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."

Experts here slammed Abe's remarks. Ko Sang-tu at Yonsei University said, "That is simply absurd. It's like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't really an invasion. If a German chancellor had said the same thing, he or she would have had to resign."

Abe told lawmakers on Monday that he does not feel bound by the Murayama statement. The global press was alarmed, with the New York Times saying he sought to whitewash his country's World War II atrocities, while the Economist warned that the right-leaning Japanese Cabinet is a bad sign for the region.

Abe said Japan's pacifist constitution was put together by what he called "occupying forces," referring to the victorious U.S. at the end of the war.

The constitution, which stipulates the country's desire for peace and pledges a policy of non-aggression, effectively "entrusted the lives and safety of the public to the goodwill of other countries," he claimed.

This suggests he is throwing his weight behind moves from the far right to revise the constitution so the Japanese military can launch pre-emptive strikes abroad.

On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso and other Japanese politicians visited Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, which houses the remains of Japan's war dead including convicted war criminals. On Tuesday, 168 members of the Diet followed suit, the biggest number of lawmakers since 1989.

The Japanese media were critical of the stunt. The Asahi Shimbun urged cabinet members to exercise "restraint" in speech as well as action, while the Mainichi Shimbun warned Japan's "national interests are at risk" if such strain is put on cooperation with China and South Korea in trying to rein in North Korea.

When I first arrived in China I very quickly noticed that the Chinese hate the Japanese. At first I thought it a little silly to still hate them over a war that ended more than 60 years ago but it's pretty obvious that the Japanese are trying really hard to keep the hatred alive.

I've brought back Karajorma's OP, because things have strayed some distance from my original attempt to remove all of Japan from the firing line. At this point, I think it would be interesting to have a little poll since so many people have been drawn in lately. Who thinks all of Japan is as bad as Abe and who thinks all of Japan shouldn't be brought into it just because Abe ran his mouth?

Obviously I vote that we should only be coming down on Abe, and not Japan as a whole.

[Ghostavo]

I've brought back Karajorma's OP, because things have strayed some distance from my original attempt to remove all of Japan from the firing line. At this point, I think it would be interesting to have a little poll since so many people have been drawn in lately. Who thinks all of Japan is as bad as Abe and who thinks all of Japan shouldn't be brought into it just because Abe ran his mouth?

Obviously I vote that we should only be coming down on Abe, and not Japan as a whole.

You are still hilariously missing the point.

If it was just their current prime minister, this thread wouldn't exist. The issue has existed far longer than the current guy has been in office.

[karajorma]

Indeed. Lorric seems unable to see past that point. He wants to lay the blame entirely at the feet of Abe. Which is ridiculous when you realise that this man is an elected politician in a democratic country. The issues go far deeper than one stupid man.

These things though are exactly why I said it. Big changes have already been stamped on Japan to ensure such things never take place again. We have a new totally different Japan today.

How did you manage to completely miss the point that Abe is trying to reverse those changes? It's pretty obvious he wishes he could take back the apology over comfort women. It's pretty obvious he wants to strengthen Japan's military while at the same time not feeling that they did anything wrong in the past. It's pretty obvious that he's interested in provoking China and hoping that America will defend him if he goes too far.

This is an incredibly dangerous path to take. And while many Japanese people don't agree with him, the simple fact remains that the majority do, or else he wouldn't be in charge.

[Lorric]

I must sleep now. But I have much to think about. I am not as sure of myself now.

[perihelion]

Then maybe all of this was worth it.

[niffiwan]

... this man is an elected politician in a democratic country
...
... And while many Japanese people don't agree with him, the simple fact remains that the majority do, or else he wouldn't be in charge.

These comment made me look up the Japanese electoral system, and wow, the LDP has been in power (excluding ~4 years) since 1955.  In the 2012 elections they won an absolute majority of seats & a majority of votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_%28Japan%29

(as an aside, what is it with conservative parties calling themselves "Liberal"?)

[The E]

There is no guarantee that party names will follow the American or European conventions.

[SypheDMar]

I was also under the impression that American naming systems tend to be the opposite of what many countries follow. I may be wrong.

[niffiwan]

true, but these guys don't have that excuse!

[MP-Ryan]

I was also under the impression that American naming systems tend to be the opposite of what many countries follow. I may be wrong.

Unfortunately, the terms 'socialism,' 'communism,' 'capitalism,' 'fascism,' 'liberal,' 'libertarian,' and 'conservative' have been so far removed from their original meaning and context in their use within the United States and so loaded by political parties that a typical/average American's perception of what these words actually mean is worthless outside of the United States.

Also, actual 'conservativism' is a branch of classical liberalism, which is why conservative parties can legitimately refer to themselves as Liberals.  Typically this manifests as fiscally conservative and socially liberal/libertarian.  Most of the Canadian 'Liberals' sit under these politics.

[niffiwan]

thank you for that, you've helped correct a glaring hole in my education!

[Apollo]

I was also under the impression that American naming systems tend to be the opposite of what many countries follow. I may be wrong.

Unfortunately, the terms 'socialism,' 'communism,' 'capitalism,' 'fascism,' 'liberal,' 'libertarian,' and 'conservative' have been so far removed from their original meaning and context in their use within the United States and so loaded by political parties that a typical/average American's perception of what these words actually mean is worthless outside of the United States.

Also, actual 'conservativism' is a branch of classical liberalism, which is why conservative parties can legitimately refer to themselves as Liberals.  Typically this manifests as fiscally conservative and socially liberal/libertarian.  Most of the Canadian 'Liberals' sit under these politics.

Indeed. American definitions are basically:

Socialist/Far-left: Any welfare capitalist to the left of the Republicans. Generally used in an insulting manner.

Communist: Same as above except more insulting (and paranoid). It should be noted that communism is actually a form of anarchy, and thus even the extreme state socialists it has traditionally been applied to don't qualify (Stalin was not leading a transition to anarchy).

Capitalism: Whatever form and degree of welfare capitalism the Republicans happen to support.

Liberal: Someone who supports more government control of the economy (and other stuff outside of gay marriage, abortion, religion, and sometimes drug use) than the Republicans.

Conservative: Someone who supports less government control of the economy (and more control of people's personal lives) than the Democrats.

Libertarian: Someone with more socially liberal viewpoints than the Republicans and as much or more rightist views (outside of foreign intervention) than the Republicans.

Fascist/Far-right: The former is not often used. The latter is sometimes used to smear welfare capitalists to the right of the Democratic Party, as well as religious fundies.


When both parties support the same basic economic and political system, definitions will become warped as they use insulting rhetoric to make their opponents look more extreme than they actually are.

[Grizzly]

Name one occasion where they haven't been forced to apologise.

It might be some two-faced apology which no one believes, but it's pretty rare this kind of crap is allowed to actually stand. Hell, Obama had to apologise for saying a woman was attractive a while back.

Rick santorum flat out said that 5% of elderly deaths occuring in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia (voluntary euthanasia doesn't even approach this number, and so far there has only been one case where the procedures may not have been followed correctly). He never apologized.

[karajorma]

I think that's more due to the fact that no one at all gives a **** what Rick Santorum says.

[NGTM-1R]

I think that's more due to the fact that no one at all gives a **** what Rick Santorum says.

Like Michelle Bachmann, he mainly remains in office because of voter apathy towards Congress, rather than because he's being really convincing to some subset of lunatics.

Pretty much the same reason we keep reelecting Duncan Hunter. He hasn't burned the place down or had a significant negative impact on the district, and nobody really listens to anything he says, so most people just go to the polls, look at the thing, and go "I know neither of these people but the incumbent hasn't damaged anything I can tell" and go with the devil they know.

[Spoon]

Name one occasion where they haven't been forced to apologise.

It might be some two-faced apology which no one believes, but it's pretty rare this kind of crap is allowed to actually stand. Hell, Obama had to apologise for saying a woman was attractive a while back.

Rick santorum flat out said that 5% of elderly deaths occuring in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia (voluntary euthanasia doesn't even approach this number, and so far there has only been one case where the procedures may not have been followed correctly). He never apologized.

I was thinking of exactly that a few days ago but I couldn't recall in the slighest what that guy was called and I couldn't really be arsed to look it up just for the sake of telling Kara that he was wrong.

I think that's more due to the fact that no one at all gives a **** what Rick Santorum says.

"On June 6, 2011 Santorum announced his run for the Republican nomination in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Upon announcing his campaign suspension on April 10, 2012, he had won 11 primaries and caucuses and received nearly 4 million votes. Santorum officially endorsed Mitt Romney on May 7, 2012.[7]"
Apparantly nearly 4 million voters do (that's nearly one fourth of the population of the netherlands right there). That's a lot of people apparantly giving a ****.

[StarSlayer]

That's 1% of the population here. 

Also notice he didn't win the election.  Not to mention the last go round for congress and senate a bunch of ass clowns made stupid comments regarding to women and rape, they got drummed out of office.

[Spoon]

That's 1% of the population here. 

Nuh uh! It's at least 1.25% of the population! 

Also notice he didn't win the election.  Not to mention the last go round for congress and senate a bunch of ass clowns made stupid comments regarding to women and rape, they got drummed out of office.

Of course I'm not saying that its remotely on the same scale etc. Was just pointing out that it does happen (since karajorma made this confident claim that its completely unheard of in america).

[NGTM-1R]

Apparantly nearly 4 million voters do (that's nearly one fourth of the population of the netherlands right there). That's a lot of people apparantly giving a ****.

Here's the problem.

Nobody knows dick about their local representatives because they ultimately don't really matter so the news doesn't really report on their antics. Their senators probably matter, although whether they get any kind of news coverage is up in the air. (Back in Virginia we gave a damn, here in California it's just assumed Barbara Boxer Is, Was, And Forever Shall Be so she's not reported on.)

I'm stuck with Mayor Lunatic right now because his career of making an ass of himself in Congress flew under the radar because he didn't matter. Because the House of Representives is full of the C-team politicians who were shuffled off where they couldn't hurt anybody, like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.