|
It seems pretty rare to have that long of a word translated phonetically-- it almost reminds me of Japanese.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Ha! That reminds me of when I first heard of gongbao ji ding. It's suspiciously close to kung-pow chicken in its sound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Ha! That reminds me of when I first heard of gongbao ji ding. It's suspiciously close to kung-pow chicken in its sound. That's because kung-pow is simply an older way of transliterating gongbao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
My China source tells me that Jimmy Kimmel is making the rounds on state media for his awful "kill all Chinese" remark with regards to debt. Somebody should tell them that he's a talentless hack with a history of being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Kimmel's Halloween candy videos are pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:My China source tells me that Jimmy Kimmel is making the rounds on state media for his awful "kill all Chinese" remark with regards to debt. Somebody should tell them that he's a talentless hack with a history of being an rear end in a top hat. Wasn't it a kid in some segment in his show that said that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
hitension posted:It seems pretty rare to have that long of a word translated phonetically-- it almost reminds me of Japanese. Well it is in Taiwan, there are a lot more Japanese influences there since it was ruled by them for the first half of the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
pairofdimes posted:Wasn't it a kid in some segment in his show that said that? I find the whole concept and uproar ridiculous to be honest with you. Whoever is upset at this in China should just stop being pansies. I've never seen a country with such a fragile ego what with all of the instances of "hurting the Chinese people's feelings". I mean good lord can you imagine people in England saying "I'm very hurt at David Letterman for saying that English food sucks and I demand an apology.". And then David Letterman goes to England and apologizes. Jesus Christ. And yes, it wasn't Kimmel who said that, it was a kid. And Kimmel didn't say like "Yeah let's kill all Chinese people that's awesome." The segment was edited in such a way that it was like Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" in that you are supposed to laugh at how ridiculous the kids were. Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Well it is in Taiwan, there are a lot more Japanese influences there since it was ruled by them for the first half of the 20th century. Uhhh I live in Taiwan and still find this sort of transliteration pretty rare but thanks for the history 101!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
It was no trouble at all. You're welcome!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I find the whole concept and uproar ridiculous to be honest with you. Whoever is upset at this in China should just stop being pansies. I've never seen a country with such a fragile ego what with all of the instances of "hurting the Chinese people's feelings". I mean good lord can you imagine people in England saying "I'm very hurt at David Letterman for saying that English food sucks and I demand an apology.". And then David Letterman goes to England and apologizes. Jesus Christ. I believe it was in this thread someone explained at the different attitude the Chinese have to apologies. It's tied in somewhat with the 'face' culture but apologies are effectively a power play when it comes to politics. They act as an admission of wrongdoing and a sign that you are the weaker partner in a relationship. The Chinese government can play up other nations apologising for various acts as basically a way of showing their own population how powerful China is on the world stage while simultaneously providing moral cover for any criticisms they receive regarding human rights or pollution (basically, 'China you're destroying the environment in the South China Seas and wiping out the fishing industry for the region, please stop.' 'gently caress you Japan, apologise properly for the Rape of Nanjing and stop imposing your political pollution on the great Chinese people!'). That said I don't remember exactly how it was phrased originally and that recounting makes me feel a touch Orientalist but the Chinese definitely place a lot more humiliation on apologising for wrongdoing, as is generally true for East Asia. Which becomes especially clear if you try to point out to someone how they hosed up, the correct way to deal with such a situation is to highlight the mistake and pretend as hard as you can noone present actually did it. Also possibly fix it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
hitension posted:Uhhh I live in Taiwan and still find this sort of transliteration pretty rare but thanks for the history 101! Maybe when you pick up a kafei on your way to the wangba you can say OK and baibai to the waitress before her other fense arrive! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Yeah those sure are long words!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:That's because kung-pow is simply an older way of transliterating gongbao. True enough, it was the ji ding that really made me do a double take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I find the whole concept and uproar ridiculous to be honest with you. Whoever is upset at this in China should just stop being pansies. I've never seen a country with such a fragile ego what with all of the instances of "hurting the Chinese people's feelings". It's intentional government policy. The late Qing and early 20th century is taught as "100 years of humiliation " in school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:True enough, it was the ji ding that really made me do a double take. That part is just a coincidence though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's intentional government policy. The late Qing and early 20th century is taught as "100 years of humiliation " in school. Well it kind of was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
The idea of the 100 Years of Humiliation was really kicked into high gear during the reforms under Deng. Along with the Japan-hate, it kind of filled the gap when they ditched all the Communist talk with Socialism-with-Chinese-Characteristics deal. So instead of people learning about revolutionary struggles and workers around the world being bros, it became "Look what all these terrible people did to our China! Now let's watch a movie about the Rape of Nanjing! I know you're like 8, but you need to see this. Also we encourage you to cry while you watch."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:The Chinese government can play up other nations apologising for various acts as basically a way of showing their own population how powerful China is on the world stage while simultaneously providing moral cover for any criticisms they receive regarding human rights or pollution (basically, 'China you're destroying the environment in the South China Seas and wiping out the fishing industry for the region, please stop.' 'gently caress you Japan, apologise properly for the Rape of Nanjing and stop imposing your political pollution on the great Chinese people!'). I'll probably regret asking this, but by apologising properly they don't mean 'Stop your neo-liberals and far right nuts from whitewashing school books and visiting Yasakuni shrine and we're good', do they.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
There seems to be a trend of communist countries reverting to nationalism once they abandon communism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I'll probably regret asking this, but by apologising properly they don't mean 'Stop your neo-liberals and far right nuts from whitewashing school books and visiting Yasakuni shrine and we're good', do they. It's a useful political tool so probably not, but the fact that the Japanese are still doing that kind of makes it valid still. Fojar38 posted:There seems to be a trend of communist countries reverting to nationalism once they abandon communism. No, it's just that Communist countries happened to come from countries that were known for being isolationist shitholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I believe it was in this thread someone explained at the different attitude the Chinese have to apologies. It's tied in somewhat with the 'face' culture but apologies are effectively a power play when it comes to politics. They act as an admission of wrongdoing and a sign that you are the weaker partner in a relationship. The Chinese government can play up other nations apologising for various acts as basically a way of showing their own population how powerful China is on the world stage while simultaneously providing moral cover for any criticisms they receive regarding human rights or pollution (basically, 'China you're destroying the environment in the South China Seas and wiping out the fishing industry for the region, please stop.' 'gently caress you Japan, apologise properly for the Rape of Nanjing and stop imposing your political pollution on the great Chinese people!'). Dunno, that's how apologies work for basically any international diplomacy. Look at what just came up regarding the US and Afghanistan, with administration officials issuing statements to quash any rumors of possible apologies as "completely false," and more generally the accusation that the president would ever apologize for America being used as an attack during the election. Basically, when's the last time the US officially apologized for anything? It's vanishingly rare. Even at a individual level, pointing out how a superior hosed up in almost any American workplace is just not done, at least when you enter the corporate or professional world. And anyone apologizing for anything usually means they're either already screwed or else are one step away from being shitcanned and are being forced to apologize to a powerful client or similar figure. American culture is pretty seriously obsessed with image and perceptions of power so I just don't see that huge a difference on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
The key here is that apologies will never come if you demand one in international diplomacy, because from that point onward any apology made will look coerced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:There seems to be a trend of communist countries reverting to nationalism once they abandon communism. Reverting? Chinese communists and Russian communists never really got along, probably because of nationalism and competing national interests. The only reason the Warsaw pact toed the party line was because they were puppet states and any overt nationalists that threatened this uniformity in favor of more national interests tended to end up dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Ok, so recently the American Ambassador to the P.R.C Gary Locke resigned. Can someone tell me why? He's not running for President like Jon Huntsman is he? I just read this article from the Atlantic "In Praise of Gary Locke, the Best-Ever American Ambassador to the P.R.C.". He dealt with a blind activist, a cop on escape, and wore his own back pack when he ordered coffee. It's a pretty decent summary http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/11/in-praise-of-gary-locke-the-best-ever-american-ambassador-to-the-prc/281687/ quote:Ambassadors are to international politics what first-base coaches are to baseball: While they're undeniably important, their accomplishments (or failures) tend to go unnoticed. Their job is to attract as little attention as possible and be a team player. Here are some pictures "WHAT DID GARY LOCKE DO" http://english.caixin.com/2013-11-21/100607880.html Best-Ever American Ambassador though? I think that's a bit too much. Sure Locke dealt with pretty big cases, but I think Clark T. Randt, Jr 2001-2009 was probably more influential and secured certain American interests. Randt probably paved the road for US development into China. Introduced American Casinos, brought a lot more American brands into China (Burger King  ), and opposed arm sales to Taiwan. Heck, that's also the time when China entered the WTC as well.But Gary Locke had Chinese (Guangdong, the coolest province) ancestry. Which is a really big plus in the minds of Chinese and I suppose makes Sino-US relations easier? Man If only the US would put an Americanized Tibetan as a Chinese ambassador. That would be fun to watch
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I'll probably regret asking this, but by apologising properly they don't mean 'Stop your neo-liberals and far right nuts from whitewashing school books and visiting Yasakuni shrine and we're good', do they. It's more along the lines, 'This school is using a horrible text book/this local official said a horrible thing. Japan has mortally offended the Chinese people we demand an official apology from the Japanese government and the discussion of reparatations for the Rape of Nanjing at the opening to discussions over the sovereignty of the Daiyou islands'. That's not to say there aren't legitimate horrible things being done/believed by people in Japan and some even in government positions but China deliberately conflates random individuals with official Japanese policy and holds the government accountable for the actions of its citizens. Generally very publicly while also seeking negotiations on something basically unrelated. See China seeking an apology from that US state governor for 'allowing' a Tibetan restaurant owner to paint an free Tibet mural on his building. It's not about the Chinese being offended per se, it's about demonstrating to the people that China is so powerful no-one will be willing to challenge or demean them in any way any more (and so you should love and adore the government that made China so formidable and powerful). It's an intersting part of China's rise as a global power in terms of how they seek to interact with the rest of the world. Historically China hasn't really been an interventionist type nation but has instead sought to demonstrate its power by having outside nations bend the knee publicly and maintaining internal security and wealth. This has upsides certainly (China is being well received in many African countries because they're happy to invest without all the interventionist strings attached, which certainly lacks any paternalist overtones) but also downsides in making it negotiated settlements more difficult (China can't afford to lose face by backing down over a confrontation). In the West I think it gets misinterpreted as 'Why are the Chinese so touchy?' when it really isn't about that in the way we'd think of it. Again I worry I'm getting a little Orientalist, it isn't some 'inscrutable, fifth dimensional diplomatic chess' being played by Oriental despots. There are however different cultural values associated with public apologies and especially demanding someone apologise to you. Very crudely it's something subordinates do to their bosses and it's more a show of respect than responsibility taking. For other references see Hong Kong and the Philippino bus incident.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:It's more along the lines, 'This school is using a horrible text book/this local official said a horrible thing. Japan has mortally offended the Chinese people we demand an official apology from the Japanese government and the discussion of reparatations for the Rape of Nanjing at the opening to discussions over the sovereignty of the Daiyou islands'. Again, though, this isn't really a practice exclusive to China at all. Demanding apologies or random subordinates with little actual responsibility offering up apologies and resigning is pretty common coin anywhere. The Chinese like to demand apologies they know they won't get in part to build up the idea (particularly for internal consumption) that they're constantly being snubbed and ignored by other nations, and to manufacture grievances for both internal and external use. Arguably this isn't done as much by other countries largely for tactical/strategic reasons instead of cultural ones, and also because it's just a very blunt tool. Similarly, China's historically not been very interventionist arguably not just due to cultural factors but simply because they have lacked the means to do so for most of their history (and still do), especially compared to the other players in the game and the danger of any sort of confrontation or action escalating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I'll probably regret asking this, but by apologising properly they don't mean 'Stop your neo-liberals and far right nuts from whitewashing school books and visiting Yasakuni shrine and we're good', do they. Like the United States, Japan does not have government writing of textbooks, but rather approves those textbooks that meet certain criteria. It is very fitting that the protests over the horrendous Japanese textbooks that whitewash history and instill propaganda in the minds of the youth are only used in like 10 schools all over the nation. Japan doesn't have government control of textbooks due to AMERICAN intervention in an attempt to prevent the Japanese from doing exactly what China does now, control history and shape the minds of the youth to be fanatical nationalists. While China protests the horrendous revisionism of Japanese history, they fail to mention that it only occurs in like .04% of schools and 99.96% reject any kinds of books that say the Rape of Nanjing didn't happen or other atrocities. Japan has its own poo poo to deal with but the Chinese aren't interested in a legitimate discussion on the nature of historiography in a free country, they're just trying to score points in a game no one else wants to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
I'm not comfortable with an interventionalist China, tbph. There's Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and that's just on the front door.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
Chinese interventionism would require them to be able to project power more than 5 feet beyond their borders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I'm not comfortable with an interventionalist China, tbph. There's Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and that's just on the front door. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jPlIclOts4
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:Like the United States, Japan does not have government writing of textbooks, but rather approves those textbooks that meet certain criteria. It is very fitting that the protests over the horrendous Japanese textbooks that whitewash history and instill propaganda in the minds of the youth are only used in like 10 schools all over the nation. Japan doesn't have government control of textbooks due to AMERICAN intervention in an attempt to prevent the Japanese from doing exactly what China does now, control history and shape the minds of the youth to be fanatical nationalists. While China protests the horrendous revisionism of Japanese history, they fail to mention that it only occurs in like .04% of schools and 99.96% reject any kinds of books that say the Rape of Nanjing didn't happen or other atrocities. Japan has its own poo poo to deal with but the Chinese aren't interested in a legitimate discussion on the nature of historiography in a free country, they're just trying to score points in a game no one else wants to play. Plenty of textbooks do grossly understate Japan's degree of responsibility for starting the war (it was 100%) and downplay the extent of atrocities committed by Japanese forces. This year, Shinzo Abe said that it was unclear if Japan was really an aggressor, because such a definition depends on what side you are on. That such a ridiculous view is held by the literal prime minister of Japan says a lot about Japan's perception of its own history. That said, it's also 100% true that China is guilty of promoting hostile nationalism through its own distortions/dubious interpretations of history ("if you don't agree with the casualty figures for the Nanjing Massacre/don't believe that the Diaoyus are Chinese you are an imperialist dog.")
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Maybe when you pick up a kafei on your way to the wangba you can say OK and baibai to the waitress before her other fense arrive! excuse me, I believe that's wang ka you're thinking of
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
I get the feeling that Japan may have already played the 'Hey, come on, back in those days it was totally the in thing to be imperialist and assholes to everyone! Look at Britain! Look at the States!' card, though I'd like to know the general reaction to it. Waaaaaaait, this is a soothing snake oil speech, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I get the feeling that Japan may have already played the 'Hey, come on, back in those days it was totally the in thing to be imperialist and assholes to everyone! Look at Britain! Look at the States!' card, though I'd like to know the general reaction to it. Insofar as invading and taking over countries goes, that's not so much 'a card' as that's literally what happened. Hell, ask a historian. What Japan did, up until they started getting hurt bad on the Chinese mainland and the military started massacring people and committing atrocities, was not really any different from what any of the other imperial powers did. They got censure for it even at the time, but it was basically because they weren't white, and also they were somewhat late to the game. Of course the Japanese government became increasingly militaristic and brutal as time went on, and it resulted in all the atrocities they committed. Another factor to keep in mind is that Japan was the only imperial power to ever make colonies in neighboring countries, and therefore have to deal more directly with the fallout of the actions. For example if the Congo was next to Belgium and had gained economic/military/political power, as China has, you can bet they'd never stop reminding people of what happened there. LimburgLimbo fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Plenty of textbooks do grossly understate Japan's degree of responsibility for starting the war (it was 100%) and downplay the extent of atrocities committed by Japanese forces. This year, Shinzo Abe said that it was unclear if Japan was really an aggressor, because such a definition depends on what side you are on. That such a ridiculous view is held by the literal prime minister of Japan says a lot about Japan's perception of its own history. Isn't the current popular opinion was that once the US cut off trade with Noble Japan they were forced to attack their nearby neighbors to survive? It seems that since the massive backlash of the 90s "We did no wrong don't acknowledge war atrocities" they've instead tried to paint themselves as semi-innocent victims of other imperial powers forced into a desperate situation. But as far as actual atrocities go, the Japanese went above and beyond the Western Powers, almost putting Germany to shame with their rape camps, medical experiments, and wholesale slaughter of civilians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Isn't the current popular opinion was that once the US cut off trade with Noble Japan they were forced to attack their nearby neighbors to survive? I don't know if I would go so far as to say it's popular opinion, but it's certainly a view held by many people, even though it's completely illogical, because the embargo itself was precipitated by Japan making an unprovoked attempt to conquer/puppetize China.* *It's often argued that the embargo was a part of a "long game" by Roosevelt and his foreign policy advisers to bring America into war against Germany. There's truth to this, but Japan still could have gotten out of things by a）not invading China in the first place or b) taking a conciliatory stance after the embargo was passed. As for backlash, I'd say the 1990s were a period of huge improvement. Several post-war leaders were strident nationalists and it was during the 50s and 60s that government bureaucrats pulled some strings to allow Class B and C war criminals to be enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine. In the 1990s, a non-LDP led government came to power (after 45 or so years of LDP domination), which was what led to fuller apologies being made. Since then LDP leaders having grudgingly repeated the apologies, while giving the impression that they don't believe what they are saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 11:08
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I'm not comfortable with an interventionalist China, tbph. There's Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and that's just on the front door. Those are all traditional Chinese territories though (Tibet being the most recent and they were conquered in ~1720). I mean if anything it's interesting that we haven't seen them try to go after Mongolia that much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
nothing to see here *quote is not (a very late) edit*
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
It's a horrible derail to potentially get into but Japan was 'forced' into their actions in WWII in a similar way to Germany in WWI. They wanted a large Empire and security (in both physical and economic terms) and unfortunately neighbouring countries and international powers weren't willing to let them just do whatever the gently caress they wanted. They were somewhat more brutal than most Western powers were (I'm not going to make comparisons with the Belgian congo here because WTF Belgium? Seriously?). To be clear that's not to say Western Imperialists were nice guys but the Japanese didn't really give a gently caress about anyone not Japanese but they wore suits so most Western visitors reported how civilised and good for the locals they were (initially). Of course when it turned out that China and other neighbours weren't willing to just cede effective sovereignty to them, they invaded. And then mean old America wouldn't just let them conquer their neighbours and establish a pan-Pacific empire without economic sanctions and then they just had to invade everyone to get enough natural resources to protect themselves against America. Trying to pain Japan as semi-victims in WWII is confusing the interplay of international politics and agendas driven by Japan's desire for security and dominance at the cost of their neighbours with the idea that because they weren't the only players it can't really be their fault. As for Chinese interventionism, Hong Kong is going pretty well because the PRC view it as their show piece home to tempt Taiwanese buyers. "Come and look at how comfortable everything is, there's a lovely view out the window and most of the rule of law hasn't even been touched!" Which is probably a more sophisticated tack than many other powers would use in terms of recapturing territory, combined with their decades long propaganda campaign it might actually work too. Tibet's a weird one as China have some historical claim to ruling it (Qing dynasty and all) but really want it as a satellite frontier with India. The Chinese remind me of a more Imperialist Soviet Union in terms of international politics. They want buffer states but also fixate on those buffer states being Chinese and very much part of China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 14:29
|
|