|
Senkaku question for you all. I'm cursorily familiar with the history of the islands, mostly from reading articles the past two weeks and browsing Wikipedia. What's confusing me is the insistence by the Chinese that they used to be part of China at all. Am I wrong in my understanding that they used to be part of Ryukyu? And that Ryukyu was a kingdom of its own but paid tribute to both China and Japan for centuries? Then Japan annexed Ryukyu at the end of the 19th century, taking the islands from Kagoshima all the way to Senkaku. Is that right so far? Then why do China-supporters say it was taken over by Japan in WW2 and shouldve been returned? Did something happen between the annexation in 1895 and the outbreak of hostilities/expansionism that was Imperial Japan? Do I have the facts wrong or are people skewing them to make the claim?
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
Weatherman posted:The only thing I can contribute here is that every time I've read about the "history" of the dispute in the paper, they mention that some family who owned the islands before the Kuriharas opened and were running a bonito factory there. This was what sparked my question in the topic, actually. I read about the factory that they started in 1910 and ran up until roughly the start of the war in the Pacific and that confused me because comments I'd read from pro-China people claimed that the islands only fell under Japanese control due to WW2 landgrabs. Arglebargle, thanks for the solid posts. I'm living in Japan now so most of my sources tend to be a little skewed to say the least, so it's good to hear a differing P.O.V. Also, that first post helped a lot too because it explained a little better why Taiwan has a claim staked in this as well. Inu's argument is definitely biased, and I don't think it's nearly as 100% black and white as that, but it still DOES seem to me that Japan has the stronger claim. How far back can a land claim go and still have validity if you never settled the area? Iceland doesn't have any claim over Newfoundland even though the Vikings settled there and found it before the country that would eventually become Canada. If the Chinese never did anything besides pass the islands, say "yo dibs on these guys" and move on, and when the Japanese claimed them as part of the Ryukyus centuries ago and the Chinese didn't do anything about it, and then they actually settled on them and built things there, doesn't that make it a stronger claim for Japan
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Speaking of China, the LDP, and Article 9... how do most people feel about Japan re-arming? I know China would be livid, and South Korea would probably make a few references to Imperial Japan, but is it generally seen as a good thing or a bad thing? I know the US certainly would like Japan to start taking responsibility for more of the security of Pacific Asia... what about the rest of the world? Average Japanese? The Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.? I mean, the JSDF is one of the top 10 most well funded militaries in the world... and it's not even officially a military. It has, what, 200k+ members? It sort of seems like logistics and armament wise, Japan is almost entirely re-armed (save aircraft carriers and cruise missiles); is the re-working of the Constitution that major of an issue?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
Kenishi posted:Lol, can anyone confirm or deny this happened? Has there been any more development on this? With elections coming up in like ~3 weeks, how will that work? Will they just use the old districts/system until a new electoral process is worked out, and basically say "lol gently caress you" to the Supreme Court? Also, on a related topic, I've been curious lately about the power of the rural areas and the LDP's loyalty to them... Especially on the subject of agricultural subsidies. Japan wants in on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but one of the conditions that other parties (esp. the U.S.) are insisting on, as I shakily understand it, is the removal of excessive subsidies that make trade with Japan unfair. Are Japanese agriculture subsidies as bloated as I've read? Will the LDP, assuming they win the expected majority next month, refuse to sell out the inaka on which their electoral success rides?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
Ahhh, what would a week be without Ishihara popping up with some more fiery rhetoric? http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/ishihara-calls-for-nuclear-armed-japan Irishdrunk posted:So it looks like Japan is gradually ramping up their regional foreign military exchanges. Considering the geographical make up of East Asia, pumping more funds into training Coast Guards is a good security issue to work on. Pretty interesting news if Japan actually goes ahead with selling naval equipment (Cutters or even the diesel subs) to Vietnam. Granted it has been quite a few decades since they made their last point, but if there is any SEA military to keep anti-Chinese it would be the Vietnamese. You think? I would argue that the Vietnamese are pretty pissed already at China for the Paracels; while it's good to have the Vietnamese on your side, I'd think making sure Indonesia was on board would be the number one priority in SE Asia...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Kenishi posted:Huh? IP rights? Are you sure you you're not mixing something else up? The TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a free trade agreement that sets out to remove trade tariffs between countries that join. I haven't heard anything really concerning IP rights in the talks. The USTR has put HUGE emphasis on the IP portions of the TPP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership#Intellectual_property_provisions
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Kenishi posted:I hear they (and by they, I mean Abe) caused a bit of a ruckus by stating they wanted to increase the reactor count in Japan. Many weren't too happy about that By reactor count, do you mean nuke power plants? 'cause if so, I sure as hell hope they do. The sooner people get over this bullshit knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima, the better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Is knowledge of the specialty products of every prefecture actually incredibly common knowledge in Japan? I've lived in the US for years now and I couldn't say poo poo about what 9/10ths the country produces. _______ lobster _______ crabcakes _______ potatoes _______-style pizza _______ orange juice _______ po'boys/gumbo/etc. _______ bourbon I had a conversation about this with a friend recently and we realized you generally know more than you realize. Chalk up the rest to Japan being a pretty food-obsessed culture.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:All bourbon technically comes from Bourbon County, Kentucky. The rest is just whiskey that tastes similar. Yeah, i think most people who know bourbon know that, similar to champagne only coming from the Champagne region of France. But it's still fair to call it Kentucky bourbon, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
I don't know what you're talking about Weatherman. Obviously the rest of your statement checked out 100% so pentyne just wanted to make sure about that tax thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
Is this the rarely seen counter-counter sarcasm? I can't tell who's on what page now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
I just want to thank you guys for the current conversation because I went to a pub quiz last night and there was a question about exactly this topic-- namely, to put the four classes in their appropriate hierarchy. 12 hours earlier I would've been totally clueless but I got the answer right and a lot of "wtf" stares from my teammates for knowing the answer immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
Kenishi posted:Because there is a TON of frozen gas under the pacific seabed there. Japan tested out mining for it quite recently and produced really good results. See this article: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2013/03/213685.html Do you honestly believe that's why the general population cares about it? Energy security? It's lovely nationalism and refusing to let "those foreign bastards" push them around. On both sides.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Here's something to chew on. I didn't actually realize how messed up the LDPs draft of the modified constitution was. I like how the article says it would undermine gender equality as though it already exists in Japan to be undermined. This is crazy.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
No doubt in my mind that they could, but calling it gender equality just amused me is all. Also, I posted a link to the article on my facebook wall and almost immediately got some teachers worrying about what this would mean for the JET program. How loving self-absorbed can you be? I need to prune my friends list.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Maybe they got mad that the Boston marathon took everyone's attention away from them and we all forgot to give a poo poo again afterward.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Do those things mention the fact that japan, you know, started the war? Because painting yourself the victim when you are the aggressor is still whitewashing. I don't think RC was trying to say that Japan doesn't whitewash the war. She was just saying (as I understood it) that the war isn't celebrated and the average Japanese person doesn't view the era as some bygone era of glory that needs to be returned to Japan by amending the constitution
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:That's good, but it seems to be in spite of the government's efforts, not because of them. Right-- I agree with you-- but if we're still relating back to RC's post coming off of Zo's original remark: Zo posted:Still they seem to understand that their mandate is basically limited to the economy. I recall a recent survey showing the majority of regular folks being against amending the constitution for example. The point is that, even if the government is interested in doing things one way, they seem to be aware that the people are not on board with them in that regard. Seem, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
What makes Soka Gakkai more cult-like than other religious groups? I knew people were wary of them because of their ties to Komeito, but where does the cult aspect come from (aside from, apparently, aggressive recruiting)?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
The gently caress is with your schools, every time I hear about some of these places I realize how lucky I was in my tiny little inakamura. The girls in my middle school wore tights under their skirts probably 4 months out of the year, and gym shorts under them the rest of the time (the reason I know this is because they would rush to get "changed" for gym right after class some days and I nearly had a heart attack the first time a girl popped up and ripped off her skirt right in front of me). Pretty relaxed about other cold weather gear in classes too, and they never made the kids suffer TOO much before turning on the aircon in summer. The staff, on the other hand...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Did Japan actually like The Social Network? I was sitting in a class at college right after the movie came out and, when one of my professors asked asked a room with a hundred people in it if they had seen it not a single one raised their hand. This despite being in an IST course. Conversely, my middle school and elementary kids knew all about it. I was teaching the 6th graders the names of class subjects and one kid kept mixing up "social studies" with "social network" and the others would all laugh at him. My JHS 3rd years made reference to Zuckerberg once or twice, too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:This thread continues to be a wonderful reminder that Zo literally cannot make a post without sounding like a massive twat Oh good, I was hoping it wasn't just me. Jesus. I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:I think I remember seeing a news story suggesting that Abe might be going to Sochi, and that he might meet and interact with other East Asian leaders while there. Is this a big deal? Does the PM of Japan not have regular face time with the leaders of SK and China? Obama meets with with his foreign counterparts pretty regularly, and that's my perception of what heads of state do, but maybe it's not the case with Japan. Have Abe and Xi ever met in person before? I think they might have met like once last year but it wasn't for very long and they certainly weren't cordial. They've made big points of not meeting with each other at big forums like ASEAN and APEC and the like all as a way of underlining the dispute and the currently frosty nature of relations between the two countries. Same thing basically goes with South Korea; their new president is trying to build up an image of being a hardass towards Japan and trying to put Dokdo on the same level as Senkaku/Diaoyu (it's not). But because Korea hates Japan it scores her lots of easy political points telling Abe to gently caress himself. So if he goes to Sochi he probably won't meet either of them, no.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
While "get over it" or "SKorea never had any right to complain about Yasukuni in the first place" are idiotic and really unhelpful comments, am I mistaken in thinking that Japan has tried to address the issue with Korea before? Wasn't there a major payout of reparations in the 90s or something which Japan made but which many Koreans ignore when they bring up comfort women? I'm not trying to say just because Japan gave them hush money that Korea has no right to complain, and the reparations obviously had nothing to do with Yasukuni/people's right to be pissed off when Abe plays the rear end by going to the shrine, but is there not some aspect of the relationship where Japan tried to settle things in good faith and Korea has conveniently forgotten in order to scapegoat their old enemies? Legitimate question, this was something I thought I read a while ago and I'd love to know if I'm wrong about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:but when it comes down to it, the current situation with China and Korea ignoring all of that, and the Japanese government acting like they don't have to apologize, is advantageous for both governments, so why do anything to mess with it? This part I certainly agree with, and I understand why the governments continue to act the way they do, as distasteful as it may be. I was just more surprised I guess at how wholeheartedly the populace seems to get in line with the government stance on things, at least from what I've read about Korea and Dokdo day and those sort of things (although in their defense the whole Takeshima thing is laughable and I can only hope the reason Japan is still holding to their claims is to one day magnanimously relinquish those claims in order to earn good will from Korea... a man can dream, can't he?). Although "the whole populace" is coming from a pretty biased sample set of the loudest and most obnoxious who complain on the internet, so maybe the average Korean gives as little a poo poo about it as I'd hope they would.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Lemmi Caution posted:Politicians hold on to the issue of Dokdo because the prefecture that it supposedly belongs to cares intensely about it and Japanese politics are intensely local. You can apply this to just about every issue that makes you wonder why Japan holds on when even its own people don't seem to feel strongly about the issue: whaling, the dolphin hunt, territorial disputes, etc. There is a tiny, improportionately powerful rural community that cares deeply about it and will vote based on that one thing. How does that reconcile with the Okinawa base moving agreements though? The people in the area where it's moving are furious (for some kinda dumb reasons imo) and basically elect their Mayer based on that one single issue, don't they? And yet it's still going to go ahead because it's important for Japan. Why tank relations with Korea due to a sense of loyalty to one prefecture unless they have plenty of other reasons for doing so?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Right, I agree with that entirely (and actually wrote a paper last semester arguing essentially the same thing about Senkaku/Diaoyu being far too politically valuable for China or Japan to settle on). I was just responding to Lemmi's post about it having to do with the loyalty of Japanese politics and the interests of that very small niche group. I found that a little more difficult to reconcile so was asking if he could do so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
mystes posted:the Japanese government could have probably joined the invasion of Iraq as alleged collective self-defense based on the idea that 1) Iraq was involved in 9/11 (an attack on America!)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
mystes posted:Did Bush not invoke 9/11 in his initial justification for going into Iraq in 2003? Or do you think Japan would say to the US that it couldn't engage in collective self defense because it thought the US was lying? While the administration absolutely encouraged people to link 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq I was under the impression that they had very carefully, and underhandedly, not made any direct links between the two. 9/11 was absolutely the justification for going into Afghanistan and attacking the Taliban but Iraq was about WMDs and a vague "harboring terrorists" notion. I don't think that could be used by Japan as "Iraq attacked the US". If I'm wrong about the Bush administrations justifications please by all means show me. I've just been finding it more and more incredible lately how freely people link Iraq and 9/11 when there was absolutely no link between the two. I also don't think the Japan thread is the place for a discussion like this though so if you don't want to continue it that's fine too. My point was just that, at least in a situation like Iraq, it would be hard for the Japanese to go along even with their conditions for collective self defense like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Ganguro King posted:
As others have said, I think you're a little confused here; the Japanese are the ones who refuse to go to the ICJ with China (and, though they've occasionally tried to get Korea to go with them, it's a pretty bad idea which might undermine their claims over Senkaku). What they may be referring to, though, is China's dismissal of UNCLOS and respect of EEZs and territorial waters. While ultimately UNCLOS would get resolved at the ICJ too, I don't think that's what the Japanese are getting at (if this has anything to do with China at all), it's just a "we're not the ones violating an agreement we are signatories on, ahem" remark. Edit-- wait I just read your other more recent post. So I guess you're not that confused, but yeah, point stands, I think it's more UNCLOS-specific.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Wibbleman posted:Do you have any sources on this? To my understanding China has never presented a petition to the court (or tried to get japan to agree to go), and most of the stuff in the press has been various politicians speculating on what they would do. Ie at no stage has China presented a case to MOFA or the ICJ to my understanding. You know what, I actually don't. I don't recall ever hearing about an official petition, just grumbling and an assertion by the Japanese that no dispute exists. Everything else has just been the "experts" chiming in, you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
ozza posted:
Fuckin country is hopeless
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:people and media will reflexively slant something coming out from Japan as peculiar. Phrasing...
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Shut the gently caress up there's nothing wrong with that Congrats on taking this thread so seriously and policing what was surely an earnest admonition on my part not to use the word slant. Well done
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Never even heard of the Kunaicho before, this is really interesting. What if the Imperial family just didn't want to abide by their direction? I know that's very unlikely, but like what if they wanted to call their friends anyway? What kind of problems or penalties would there be?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:What if ordinary Japanese employees took their allocated holiday time? Or went home when their 8 hours was up? Or even if once their work was done instead of sitting around for an extra four hours waiting for the boss to finally leave? What if employees didn't shower their bosses with gifts? Small Frozen Thing posted:Yeah, but I don't think you can demote or lay off the Imperial Family. Small Frozen Thing's reply is what I was getting at, yeah. I mean, an employee bucks the culture in the offive, they won't get promoted, won't be given good assignments or responsibility on the job, maybe get shunned socially... what do they do with the Imperial Family? I know it would be entirely "improper" and so that's why they stay in line, but I'm just wondering what ultimate power is held over them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You don't seriously think there was ever any possible outcome other than "dude gets his head chopped off after months of horrifying torture", right? All the stuff about getting him out or ransoms or whatever was a bad joke at best. There was never a point when the Japanese government could affect that outcome If Jordan had handed over the woman they wanted I'm quite sure that ISIS would've handed over Goto. Why would they want to sacrifice any opportunity at collecting future ransom just for a random Japanese journalist? But also, LOL at Abe resigning over this. This was not at all a stroke against him and can easily be spun into "we need a more proactive presence and representation out there" since they had no one to negotiate with ISIS directly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Reverend Cheddar posted:Because you're offending the people who woke up early to do their makeup what makes you so much better that you get to sleep in huh?!?!? Also, it reminds men that Japanese women aren't born naturally beautiful and entirely unneeding of makeup, which is a terrible and unpleasant thought.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Japan was defeated, by Russia, by America, by England and France; by Republic of China, by Australia, by New Zealand and Canada. Adorable
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Where’s the 30+ pages from? Sounds like they yearly Japan defense white paper (防衛白書) which just got released. But it’s more like 580 pages. Maybe they mean 30 pages are dedicated to China? Here’s the paper itself. I’m interested in hearing if they call out specific claims as being BS. 30 pages is the English digest version, 580 is the full white paper.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 15:16
|
|