|
Effectronica posted:Actually, this is what history education boils down to in the American school system as well- it presents a jingoistic and nationalistic view of American actions in the past, treats history as an inevitable process to deny students any sense of agency or power, and a host of other sins. There's really very little difference between the two nations on this matter. I have taught secondary education in both nations and this is absolutely untrue. While American school systems do have a nationalistic or doctrinal function, it has been in no way as well enforced, unified, or consciously cultivated as it was when I taught in China. It is late, but it you have specific questions about how the experiences compared re: dogmatism I would be happy to answer them from an ancedotal standpoint in the case of my experience in China or a more informed education policy standpoint in the case of history education in the United States.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I'm not saying you're a revisionist or anything but do you realize a similar "exact numbers" argument is used by holocaust revisionists and the whole 6 million figure right? No one claims that your average ignorant man on the street is supposed to represent the official or academic account of history either. I'm just relating my experience with Chinese students, who were able to go to a prestigious American university so I wouldn't call them ignorant average people. I don't know the details of Chinese education, only that my Chinese students would spout nationalist nonsense whenever history came up (mostly; there were a couple who didn't buy it). None of them had any idea what the Tiananmen Square protests were, for example. It was quite a contrast to a student I had from Hong Kong. I am aware of the exact numbers holocaust denier thing but I don't see how that's equivalent to claiming Japan killed more people in China than the entire population of the Earth at the time. My only argument is that Japan legitimately did horrific poo poo to China and there is no need to exaggerate it. All that does is make people who know better start thinking you're full of poo poo. Reporting the facts is just fine to make Imperial Japan look evil, because they were. I do get annoyed when people say six million people died in the Holocaust and completely ignore there were millions of non-Jewish victims. I'd be annoyed if someone said 50 million were killed. I don't see what the problem with facts is. I grew up with Chinese people and have always loved China, there's no ambivalence from me. The Japan that invaded China was evil as gently caress. I just wish they would stop pretending that the Japan that currently exists is the same Japan that existed 80 years ago. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 04:50
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:I have taught secondary education in both nations and this is absolutely untrue. While American school systems do have a nationalistic or doctrinal function, it has been in no way as well enforced, unified, or consciously cultivated as it was when I taught in China. It is late, but it you have specific questions about how the experiences compared re: dogmatism I would be happy to answer them from an ancedotal standpoint in the case of my experience in China or a more informed education policy standpoint in the case of history education in the United States. You're right, I overstated things. I seriously dislike intimations along the lines of "East vs. West", but that's no excuse for sloppy thinking or arguing. I would love to hear both standpoints if you don't mind.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:"and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be resotred to the Republic of China." I guess I have to be that right wing pro Japanese guy to point out that there is no historical record of that case ever happening. It's all from a word of mouth local legend in northern Taiwan. Unless of course someone can provide the text of the ruling in either the original Japanese or the Chinese when it was presented in Taiwan because there is no record in Tokyo, Naha, or in Taipei of it ever happening. PrezCamachoo fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Ha where did the new thread title come from? http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/09/18/audi-dealership-in-china-we-must-exterminate-the-japanese/
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
If the islands are Chinese, did the PRC raise furious objections when the USAF bombed the hell out of them for target practice? Or when the Japanese built a Katsuobushi plant there? There are documents, maps and letters showing the islands as either Chinese/Taiwanese or Japanese, but Japan was alone in making a claim and consistently defending it for nearly 200 years. I'm admittedly biased towards Japan and think they have the stronger claim, but I'm curious how Chinese address the fact that they neglected to defend their supposed territory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:I'm admittedly biased towards Japan and think they have the stronger claim, but I'm curious how Chinese address the fact that they neglected to defend their supposed territory. Why should they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Does anyone know how the law actually works in cases of disputed territory? Not this specific case, just in general. I don't have a good grasp on it and don't know where I'd even look, I don't know who would arbitrate it or anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:Why should they? It is the sole determinant of sovereignty. e: vvv In that case, I lay claim to the islands in the name of all Goonkind. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It is the sole determinant of sovereignty. Not if you are Chinese. Rational arguments based on international law are just so many steaks of piss flying into the gale when it comes to issues surrounding China's territorial claims. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:If the islands are Chinese, did the PRC raise furious objections when the USAF bombed the hell out of them for target practice? Or when the Japanese built a Katsuobushi plant there? There are documents, maps and letters showing the islands as either Chinese/Taiwanese or Japanese, but Japan was alone in making a claim and consistently defending it for nearly 200 years. For your information, the PRC did protest furiously in the United Nations Security Council when President Nixon wrongly passed the islands to Japanese control. Prior to 1895 the Islands were indisputably Chinese. The Japanese actually acknowledged Chinese sovereignty. In 1895 the First Sino-Japanese War began. It was Japan's You're basically supporting Japanese Fascism by supporting their awful claim. And you're terrible at math if you think that's close to 200 years. Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Stuff The PRC and Taiwan only staked claims on the islands after oil was discovered in 1968. Prior to that, on KMT and PRC maps and newspapers, the islands were listed and referred to as being Japanese. And through all of recorded history - the only people to have ever lived on those islands and build something there are Japanese. As people have pointed out, discovering an island and naming it on a map does not make it yours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:In 1895 the First Sino-Japanese War began. It was Japan's first foray into Imperialism. Poor Okinawa, no one cares about or remembers them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:For your information, the PRC did protest furiously in the United Nations Security Council when President Nixon wrongly passed the islands to Japanese control. Did they protest when it was under US control between 1945-1970, before they discovered oil there? Honest question I tried looking around and other than the PRC's opposition to the San Francisco treaty I couldn't find anything. From what I understand the Chinese did not make a claim until the 70's but please correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:For your information, the PRC did protest furiously in the United Nations Security Council when President Nixon wrongly passed the islands to Japanese control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
What's clear is that China has never conquered anyone in its long history of thousands of peoples joining together peacefully to forego their culture, language, territory, livelihood and yes even lives in order to give way to and further develop a superior Han culture. Imperialism is something that has only come from Japan and the west, targeting the peaceful people of China (out of jealousy no doubt). China won't accept a Japanese apology, they have even stated clearly that even should Japan apologize in a manner they desire, they would not give up the right to demand further apologies in the future. It has to be a two-way street. Yes there are hosed up people in Japan, yes due to the Cold War both Japan and Germany didn't get the right people kicked out/arrested/tried. This wasn't a one-way street mind you, the Soviets were just as happy to get their hands on German and Japanese knowledge and scientists. This is jingoism and revanchism of the clearest variety. China is using its people to accomplish what they can't accomplish through international legal channels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:For your information, the PRC did protest furiously in the United Nations Security Council when President Nixon wrongly passed the islands to Japanese control. You are correct that the islands are "Chinese", insofar as they belong to Taiwan. Which is not part of the PRC, and hasn't been for the better part of seventy years. Hope that helps clear things up for you! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:For your information, the PRC did protest furiously in the United Nations Security Council when President Nixon wrongly passed the islands to Japanese control. I'm not asking how much the Japanese resembled Nazis. I'm not asking how much I suck at basic mathematics. I'm asking how somebody who supports the Chinese claim justifies the fact that China didn't have poo poo to say about the islands until ~1968. Did China complain about the USAF conducting bombing runs on an integral part of Chinese territory? If not, how does the Chinese side justify their silence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:I'm not asking how much the Japanese resembled Nazis. I'm not asking how much I suck at basic mathematics. I'm asking how somebody who supports the Chinese claim justifies the fact that China didn't have poo poo to say about the islands until ~1968. Well it was all kinda sorta in a vague iffy status until the reversion was being planned. At which point China bitched rather loudly about it. Between 1972 and 1978 it was actually a rather large sticking point that was preventing a peace treaty and as such, it was set aside by both sides until a future point in time. Fine-able Offense posted:You are correct that the islands are "Chinese", insofar as they belong to Taiwan. Which is not part of the PRC, and hasn't been for the better part of seventy years. Both Roc and PRC are in agreement that it's part of the Taiwan entity, however there's this tiny little sticking point wherein Taiwan is part of China and Taiwan is not really a country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
PrezCamachoo posted:The PRC and Taiwan only staked claims on the islands after oil was discovered in 1968. Prior to that, on KMT and PRC maps and newspapers, the islands were listed and referred to as being Japanese. That's ridiculous, the ROC didn't have the capability to defend the islands and had little interest for obvious reasons. The PRC after the Korean war didn't have diplomatic relations with America. Whether newspaper editors or map makers were aware that the Potsdam declaration transferred ownership back to China is irrelevant. PrezCamachoo posted:As people have pointed out, discovering an island and naming it on a map does not make it yours. Discovery is a factor that is taken into account when determining sovereignty in international disputes. Territories are theoretically owned by whoever discovers, names, and administers them. Suntory BOSS posted:I'm not asking how much the Japanese resembled Nazis. I'm not asking how much I suck at basic mathematics. I'm asking how somebody who supports the Chinese claim justifies the fact that China didn't have poo poo to say about the islands until ~1968. Have you or have you not heard of the Korean War? I need an answer to this. Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
Lemmi Caution posted:Poor Ryukyu Kingdom, no one cares about or remembers them.  Not even the name apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Discovery is a factor that is taken into account when determining sovereignty in international disputes. Territories are theoretically owned by whoever discovers, names, and administers them. Your grasp of international law regarding this matter is really, really bad. This video is obviously made by Japanese nationalists but it lays out the basis for their ownership pretty clearly and in relation to actual maritime territorial law as practiced here on Earth under the UNCLOS which both China and Japan have signed. Besides the fact that this kind of categorization as 'discoverer' isn't inherently fair. How do you know the Chinese actually found the islands first? Because they wrote the name down on a book? How do you know it wasn't Ryukyuans who actually lived in the area, or Taiwanese aborigines 10,000 years ago who colonized the entire Pacific who knew where the islands were or named them? That is why being the first imperial power to say you own something isn't very useful unless you actually exercise sovereignty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnlr_OBN2uw There's also something as part of the UNCLOS called the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and China has never once filed a complaint there against Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_for_the_Law_of_the_Sea Why does China feel that it shouldn't be bound by international law that it chose to ratify? They didn't have to agree to it, after all, the USA didn't, if they truly believe that they are in the right in this situation, why not ask a neutral third party of trained maritime judges who have studied these matters their entire professional lives to make a judgment against Japan? Is it because secretly everyone is against China? Fall Sick and Die fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:
And China administered these islands when?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
PrezCamachoo posted:And China administered these islands when? Prior to 1895. In 1893 the Chinese issued an edict concerning herb collection on the islands, prior to that they were fishing grounds and the islands marked the border with the Ryukyus. They considered Chinese by the Japanese as early as the 18th century when Japanese cartographer made note of them as part of China. There's a mountain of evidence that in 1885 the Japanese were considering making a play for the islands but decided against it because they were worried that China would defend them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Have you or have you not heard of the Korean War? I need an answer to this. Y'know, responding to a question with a question really gives the impression that you lack answers. If you have a point to make regarding China's silence on the island issue prior to that 1968 UN report, now would be a great time to share.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:Y'know, responding to a question with a question really gives the impression that you lack answers. If you have a point to make regarding China's silence on the island issue prior to that 1968 UN report, now would be a great time to share. China had no diplomatic relations with America following the Korean War that's why there was diplomatic "silence."
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:China had no diplomatic relations with America following the Korean War that's why there was diplomatic "silence." Because diplomatic protests are the only way a nation can express displeasure? From 1896 to to the 1950s, China was silent about the Japanese building fish-flake factories on their land. From 1946 to the 70s (and possibly later), China was silent about the USAF using Kuba-jima for bombing practice. The Japanese have patrolled, surveyed and danced the hokey pokey on these rocks for over a century, but the Taipei County/Okinawa Prefecture level dispute in the 1930s is the closest I can find to any Chinese entity challenging Japan's administration of the island prior to the discovery of the area's potentially lucrative resource wealth. Are there other examples that I'm missing? "Oceans Apart posted:...the exercise of sovereign authority over island territories is the key factor in determining ownership of islands. It's unfair to expect China to have fully exercised sovereignty but reasonable to expect that they at least expressed indignation over violations of their sovereign territory. Angry newspaper editorials, protests, anything to show that the Chinese disputed Japan's exercised sovereignty over the islands between 1895 and 1968. A few Chinese picking flowers on an island in the early 1800s does not magically grant the PRC eternal ownership of the land. Sovereignty comes with certain responsibilities that China seems to have neglected, and I think this is the core weakness of their territorial claim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:19
|
|
|
I bet people would be a little more willing to consider it if China hadn't just finished trying a bald-faced bullshit land grab in the South China Sea. Makes it look like their strategy is going around making nonsense claims on any island vaguely near China that might have natural gas deposits, whatever the validity of their claims here might be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:This video is obviously made by Japanese nationalists but it lays out the basis for their ownership pretty clearly  Wow. A video by a bunch of Japanese nationalists this won't be riddled with bullshit. Oh wait it is. Are you loving serious?- It makes the already mentioned arguement that the islands were "terra nullis". Did you even read my previous posts? Why did the Japanese foriegn ministry warn their governor against aggression towards the islands? Did the Chinese not legislate concerning the islands prior to 1895? - Your nationalists state matter of factly that the island are in Okinawa prefecture. Historically the islands were Chinese back when there was a Ryukyu kingdom even according to Japanese maps. - The thrust of the nationalists argument is that the islands were not effectively controlled by China. However if China didn't effectively control the islands why did Japan feel the need to force China to cede the islands in 1895? - The video truly butchers the Palmas case. The judges standard for what should qualify as "exercising authority" over an island is extremely low, planting a flag was enough for him. Chinese references to, maps of, and accounts of vists to the island are numerous and date back to the fifteenth century. - Your nationalists cite 17th century Chinese documents asserting ownership of the islands west of the Okninawa Trough and then they say that's impossible because "the concept of 'territorial water' is quite modern and Japan was first to establish "a modern sovereign state." Seriously? Your nationalists just come across as racist imperialists to me, which of their arguments did you find convincing? Fall Sick and Die posted:There's also something as part of the UNCLOS called the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and China has never once filed a complaint there against Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_for_the_Law_of_the_Sea On September 13, China submitted its baselines to the United Nations in accordance with UNCLOS, which includes these islands. Prior to this the issue was shelved by both sides in the interests of peace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:32
|
|
|
I don't usually post in this thread, but the recent coverage of Japanese territorial disputes has gotten me wondering about something, and I thought maybe somebody in here could answer my question. If, hypothetically, for some undefined reason (say, China promised Russia something,) Japan could get some or all of the Kuril Islands back in exchange for backing away from the Senkaku Islands entirely, would it be in Japan's best interests to do so? Or is the Kuril Islands dispute not at all analogous to the Senkaku Islands dispute?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:32
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:Because diplomatic protests are the only way a nation can express displeasure? From 1896 to to the 1950s, China was silent about the Japanese building fish-flake factories on their land. From 1946 to the 70s (and possibly later), China was silent about the USAF using Kuba-jima for bombing practice. I think even more confusing didn't come up during the immediate aftermath of ww2. If these islands were so clearly Chinese, why didn't the ROC make a firm demand for their sovereignty right after the war? They probably could have gotten them without question, they were one of the chief victors of the war and had suffered massive causalities. The US had no interest in the islands, and at that point, they were on far warmer with the ROC than Japan. Maybe, they just cared because of the oil/gas deposits found during the 1960s and have built this whole thing up to keep people occupied, and have been heavily abusing memories of Japanese imperialism over an issue that really had nothing to do with addressing imperialism at all. If this was about imperialism, it would have been brought up in 1945 not 1968/1972, even the KMT would have fought for territory that mattered to them. They didn't because they didn't care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:China had no diplomatic relations with America following the Korean War that's why there was diplomatic "silence." Funny you should bring up the Korean war since South Korea had the good sense to make its island claims abundantly clear which gave them much more clout against Japan in repeated attempts to do exactly what China is trying to do now. Over the course of the last 2,000 years most of these islands have been under control of about every dynasty in the region, trying to pull a historic claim to territory in that kind of environment is absolutely useless. If China was concerned about this territory then they should have had the drive to defend it over 100 years ago when they lost it to the Japanese. Recognition by the U.S. after a scuffle on the peninsula has nothing to do with the fact that when Japan moved in on this the U.S. had jack and poo poo to do with regulating foreign territory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:Because diplomatic protests are the only way a nation can express displeasure? From 1896 to to the 1950s, China was silent about the Japanese building fish-flake factories on their land. From 1946 to the 70s (and possibly later), China was silent about the USAF using Kuba-jima for bombing practice. I was really hoping you would take my earlier hint to go read a history text. Seriously you don't think the Chinese were expressing their displeasure loud enough during an era where millions of Chinese were systematically slaughtered by the Japanese from 1894 to 1945. You don't think Chinese people "expressed indignation" during the rape of Nanking? The Chinese had much bigger grievances against the Japanese during this timeperiod. A Japanese guy built a factory which failed 5 years after the islands were conquered. That doesn't change the fact they were taken in an agressive war and Japan agreed to give back it's conquests. Many countries have uninhabited islands they are not all free game to be conquered, the standard for asserting ownership of territory is actually quite low and China has an extremely strong historical claim here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:A Japanese guy built a factory which failed 5 years after the islands were conquered. That doesn't change the fact they were taken in an agressive war and Japan agreed to give back it's conquests. Why should Japan recognize this kind of action? Though I bet Tibet would be ecstatic if the Chinese adopted a policy of returning lands they took through military force.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Prior to 1895. In 1893 the Chinese issued an edict concerning herb collection on the islands, prior to that they were fishing grounds and the islands marked the border with the Ryukyus. The edict you are talking about is largely considered to be fake and is full of historical errors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Funny you should bring up the Korean war since South Korea had the good sense to make its island claims abundantly clear which gave them much more clout against Japan in repeated attempts to do exactly what China is trying to do now. Yes if only the PRC which was not considered a legitimate government by the US and had no UN representation had asked nicely the US would have just forked over the islands. Spaceman Future! posted:Over the course of the last 2,000 years most of these islands have been under control of about every dynasty in the region, trying to pull a historic claim to territory in that kind of environment is absolutely useless. That's just orientalist garbage the political history of these islands are far more simple than most patches of land in Europe. Spaceman Future! posted:If China was concerned about this territory then they should have had the drive to defend it over 100 years ago when they lost it to the Japanese. Of course, might makes right. If Poland didn't want to be German they should have had more "drive." Spaceman Future! posted:Recognition by the U.S. after a scuffle on the peninsula has nothing to do with the fact that when Japan moved in on this the U.S. had jack and poo poo to do with regulating foreign territory. What the hell are you trying to say here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I bet people would be a little more willing to consider it if China hadn't just finished trying a bald-faced bullshit land grab in the South China Sea. Makes it look like their strategy is going around making nonsense claims on any island vaguely near China that might have natural gas deposits, whatever the validity of their claims here might be. This could be a factor, particularly with the Battle of the Parcel Islands on 14 January 1974 between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Vietnam. The battle concluded with the PRC gaining control and occupying all of the Parcel Islands, formerly under the control of the Republic of Vietnam. The battle was memorialized with a propaganda film called Storm of the South Sea (南海风云). To this day, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (successor state created after the defeat of the Republic of Vietnam by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) maintains that this and the next set of islands are part of Vietnam. On 14 March 1988 the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam fought what is called the Johnson South Reef Skirmish where the Johnson South Reef, held by Vietnam since 1975, was attacked and eventually occupied by the PRC. Currently, both of these groups of islands are under the administration of the People's Republic of China currently under the newly created Sansha city which itself is part of the Hainan Province. Apologies for any incorrect Chinese, I am merely copy and pasting the Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Yes if only the PRC which was not considered a legitimate government by the US and had no UN representation had asked nicely the US would have just forked over the islands. Wow, ok, so lets wrap up here. China didn't need the blessing of the UN, which didn't exist yet, or the US, which didn't regulate foreign policy, when these islands were taken. Im not even going to touch "orientalist garbage" in a thread pertaining to Chinese history. You're on indefensible grounds here on a post that could fill up several books. Poland lost their land by force, correct! How did they get it back again? Something to do with guns and a war or something. Dunno, gets hazy. Lets ask the Tibetans how China managed to get in there without using a "Might makes right" mentality. I mean, you're crying foul for poor little victim China here, obviously they would never do something so repugnant as seizing an entire country by military force and executing protesters, would they? Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Wow, ok, so lets wrap up here. China didn't need the blessing of the UN, which didn't exist yet, or the US, which didn't regulate foreign policy, when these islands were taken. What do you mean by the US did not "regulate foreign policy?" The US administered the islands from 1945 to 1972. Spaceman Future! posted:Poland lost their land by force, correct! How did they get it back again? Something to do with guns and a war or something. Dunno, gets hazy. Way to dig in your heels with your right might right argument I won't accuse you of any inconsistency. Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
Rosscifer posted:What do you mean by the US did not "regulate foreign policy?" The US administered the islands from 1945 to 1972. Everything I ever needed to know about seizing lands through military force I learned from China. Also, quit trying to shift the date, when I say over 100 years, I don't mean under 70. America had nothing to do with these islands in 1895, China was free to go grab them if they had the motivation to do so. Rosscifer posted:Don't threadjack please. Nobody is calling China a country of angels. I'm talking about the history of these islands. And you're using a claim that Japan should have returned lands it got through military conquest to do so. Though I would be perfectly fine with China giving back their stolen territory if Japan agreed to do the same, though it would be interesting to see whether North or South Korea ended up with Korea's huge chunk. I'm sure Vietnam will be happy to have their islands back as well. How many thousands of years are we willing to go back with this anyway? Because China could get mighty tiny, everyone will have to by shiny new globes to gather dust on their desks. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:03
|
|