Someone pls explain why

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

I think what Snee was saying was that the Japanese have every right to have a complex against the West since the West apparently dragged them kicking and screaming into the 20th century and bombed the fuck out of them in WW2.

I think that's probably just as you say, the result of having a Western guilt complex. As I've said a few pages back, the Japanese are doing exceptionally well out of being a world power and I've never got the impression there's any bitterness towards the West in that regard. They will keep bleating on about the atom bombs but if they weren't such a proud people only one of those bombs need have gone off, and it was their choice to enter WW2 anyway.

Throughout history nations and empires have been exposed to external influence. It's how the world moves on. To suggest that anyone has a right to be upset about that is a nonsense.

---

Then I think that Snee could benefit from trying to find out about the culture of he Japanese and the Chinese, indeed all Asian peoples. Historically their culture has developed in its own way, and the way that they chose to interact with other people is very much a part of their culture as is the way they view the actions of other people.

Portraying them as backwards or ill-informed because you don't understand how they think, or what their value system is, or because you have some kind of misplaced/misguided guilt complex over things that were done by your forebears is insulting to say the least, to your forebears as much as to the Japanese.

I'm afraid his comments are no better than the kind of thing said about African peoples and their ways by ill-informed western people who believe that everyone must comply with western values.

Beats me why Snee is taking any flak over this as he was the one arguing against the original negative posting regarding Japanese culture. Even the most cursory glance through Snee's posts over the years would demonstrate that he is one of the least culturally imperialist posters on here.

Blunt is fine - lots of us are - but generally it is better to be blunt from a position of knowledge regarding the other poster's position rather than simply being blunt for the sake of it - unless you are Billy Dean obviousment.

Prior to the 19th century Japan was a feudal society and had (still has) a rich and unique culture. As Snee rightly points out feudal is a system of land ownership and patronage not a statement regarding technological ability. Japan was insular in all senses of the word but could see the advantages of utilising Western technology. At the same time the 19th century was an era of Empire. The US was expanding its influence westwards and European powers were grabbing bits of the Far East. The Russians had serious ambitions in the area too. It is not surprising that the Japanese felt uneasy about these incursions into their sphere of influence. The war against China in 1895 and Russia in 1904 (and the serious kicking inflicted on the Tsar's butt) proved to them that they had the resources and skills to call the shots in the region but tensions remained with the US and others in the region. In this respect Japanese Imperial ambitions were no different from that of Russia, Europe and the US. Although Empire was dying as a concept in the West post 1919 the wheels did not fall off that particular bogie until 1945 for Japan. It is possible to overstate militarism in Japanese society by concentrating on an modern Empire period that lasted little more than 50 years. That horrible things were done in the pusuit of that Empire is undeniable - it seems to go with the territory of Empire building and conquest.

PS wasn't aware the Swedes had that much to be guilty about in respect of Empire.

That's an interesting history lesson Biggles, but does it have to do with the point?

Snee's point was that the Japanese have every right to feel negatively about their treatment at the hands of the West due to being bullied by the bigger boys and then nuked.

I'm not expecting him to take any flak at all for anything. I thought I was just arguing against that point.

I was demonstrating that Japan had encountered the negative as well as the positive aspects of Imperial expansion and that Snee's point that this had encouraged their own military expansion was not an unsound one.

The use of nuclear weapons is another matter and one that was controversial at the time. Yes, it hurried the end of the war but there is much in the argument that the primary aim was to prevent the Russian army entering from the north of Japan resulting in another iron curtain in another part of the world. Peace negotians were already under way and a wholesale bloody invasion was not likely to happen. A fact that supports the view that the bombs had a broader political purpose was that the key demand of the Japanese in the peace overtures (that the Emperor stay) was granted despite Japan's "unconditional" surrender after the bombing. However, that is by and by.

WTF were we talking about again - how did we get to tentacle pron to this? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Beats me why Snee is taking any flak over this as he was the one arguing against the original negative posting regarding Japanese culture. Even the most cursory glance through Snee's posts over the years would demonstrate that he is one of the least culturally imperialist posters on here.

---

Because he makes statements like this
In the mid-1800s japan was forced to open trade with foreign nations, by a mostly american fleet of ironclads, kickstarting their turning from a tradionalist, extremely insular society, with few interests in matters outside of Japan (and even much of that came from europeans forcing their way in, after a fashion).
And this
If it hadn't been for some merkin-tard parking a fleet inside of their border in 1854, they might still have been messing about with swords and horses at the time of WWII.
And this
It was only after 1854 they started assimilating western technology with a vengeance, built a fleet and started wars, and even fought on the side of the allies in WWI.
And this
I figure the only reason they were in any real wars during those years was because of western influences.
Whilst ignoring so much of history, he ignores that Japan had been trading with other nations the whole time, he ignores that they had actually set up a schools system to teach western technology and knowledge, he ignores that they'd actually traded technology with Americans before the shogunate collapsed.

He portrays them as insular and with few interests in matters outside of Japan, and ignores the fact that Japanese people of that time weren't allowed to leave Japan, he goes onto say that they'd still have been playing with swords and horses if it wasn't for the west... forcing ourselves and ways upon them. In short he ignored large parts of history and portrayed them as backwards and ill-informed when the complete opposite is true, and he did this to support his ill founded personal theory that Japanese people feel some kind of animosity towards the west... FFS

Quote:

---

Blunt is fine - lots of us are - but generally it is better to be blunt from a position of knowledge regarding the other poster's position rather than simply being blunt for the sake of it - unless you are Billy Dean obviousment.

---

I'm afraid JP doesn't agree with you... in fact many people don't seem to agree with you... blunt isn't fine according to them. Maybe you should try and sell that to them, I personally gave up giving a fuck a while ago.

Quote:

---

Prior to the 19th century Japan was a feudal society and had (still has) a rich and unique culture. As Snee rightly points out feudal is a system of land ownership and patronage not a statement regarding technological ability. Japan was insular in all senses of the word but could see the advantages of utilising Western technology. At the same time the 19th century was an era of Empire. The US was expanding its influence westwards and European powers were grabbing bits of the Far East. The Russians had serious ambitions in the area too. It is not surprising that the Japanese felt uneasy about these incursions into their sphere of influence. The war against China in 1895 and Russia in 1904 (and the serious kicking inflicted on the Tsar's butt) proved to them that they had the resources and skills to call the shots in the region but tensions remained with the US and others in the region. In this respect Japanese Imperial ambitions were no different from that of Russia, Europe and the US. Although Empire was dying as a concept in the West post 1919 the wheels did not fall off that particular bogie until 1945 for Japan. It is possible to overstate militarism in Japanese society by concentrating on an modern Empire period that lasted little more than 50 years. That horrible things were done in the pusuit of that Empire is undeniable - it seems to go with the territory of Empire building and conquest.

PS wasn't aware the Swedes had that much to be guilty about in respect of Empire.

---

No mention of the expansionist ambitions of the Japanese before the shogunate closed off Japan to foreign contact and virtually imprisoned the people of Japan then, or of the massacres that were committed of Japanese people who dared to become Christian 30,000 wasn't it... sliced and diced according to the 'warriors way' eh?

Would calling you a cunt be blunt. :unsure:

No reason, like. :ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I was demonstrating that Japan had encountered the negative as well as the positive aspects of Imperial expansion and that Snee's point that this had encouraged their own military expansion was not an unsound one.

The use of nuclear weapons is another matter and one that was controversial at the time. Yes, it hurried the end of the war but there is much in the argument that the primary aim was to prevent the Russian army entering from the north of Japan resulting in another iron curtain in another part of the world. Peace negotians were already under way and a wholesale bloody invasion was not likely to happen. A fact that supports the view that the bombs had a broader political purpose was that the key demand of the Japanese in the peace overtures (that the Emperor stay) was granted despite Japan's "unconditional" surrender after the bombing. However, that is by and by.

WTF were we talking about again - how did we get to tentacle pron to this? :unsure:

---

Mmmm, but the words 'key demand' are important here. That wasn't their only demand. What they basically wanted was to save face, and to surrender in deed but not in name. They wanted to keep a lot of their infrastructure and politics operating not just their monarchy. I'm not surprised the cheeky bastards got nuked a second time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benchez

Would calling you a cunt be blunt. :unsure:

No reason, like. :ermm:

---

Do you think it's blunt ?

Is it blunt if I call myself a cunt... you know like I'm a cunt... is that blunt in your eyes?

Nope. Sharp as a lizzard. :smilie4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manicgeek

No mention of the expansionist ambitions of the Japanese before the shogunate closed off Japan to foreign contact and virtually imprisoned the people of Japan then, or of the massacres that were committed of Japanese people who dared to become Christian 30,000 wasn't it... sliced and diced according to the 'warriors way' eh?

---

Which position are you taking - that they were open to Western influence prior to Imperial incursions into the Far East or that they were insular and tended to view foreign influence with a degree of hostility?

The Chinese did not exactly go a bundle on foreign influences either but like the Japanese were interested in trade and science. Would the Japanese have contemplated war with America in 41 if US influence had not extended across the Pacific?

/Moved to drawing room as it's too early and your giving me a headache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manicgeek

No mention of the expansionist ambitions of the Japanese before the shogunate closed off Japan to foreign contact and virtually imprisoned the people of Japan then, or of the massacres that were committed of Japanese people who dared to become Christian 30,000 wasn't it... sliced and diced according to the 'warriors way' eh?

---

Which position are you taking - that they were open to Western influence prior to Imperial incursions into the Far East or that they were insular and tended to view foreign influence with a degree of hostility?

The Chinese did not exactly go a bundle on foreign influences either but like the Japanese were interested in trade and science. Would the Japanese have contemplated war with America in 41 if US influence had not extended across the Pacific?

---

I'm sure if no-one ever came into contact with anyone else there would never be any wars.

I don't know how this particular branch of the discussion got going or what purpose it serves.

Is the question 'is America at fault for Japan joining in in WW2'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I was demonstrating that Japan had encountered the negative as well as the positive aspects of Imperial expansion and that Snee's point that this had encouraged their own military expansion was not an unsound one.

The use of nuclear weapons is another matter and one that was controversial at the time. Yes, it hurried the end of the war but there is much in the argument that the primary aim was to prevent the Russian army entering from the north of Japan resulting in another iron curtain in another part of the world. Peace negotians were already under way and a wholesale bloody invasion was not likely to happen. A fact that supports the view that the bombs had a broader political purpose was that the key demand of the Japanese in the peace overtures (that the Emperor stay) was granted despite Japan's "unconditional" surrender after the bombing. However, that is by and by.

WTF were we talking about again - how did we get to tentacle pron to this? :unsure:

---

Mmmm, but the words 'key demand' are important here. That wasn't their only demand. What they basically wanted was to save face, and to surrender in deed but not in name. They wanted to keep a lot of their infrastructure and politics operating not just their monarchy. I'm not surprised the cheeky bastards got nuked a second time.

---

True but under unconditional surrender you get nowt. The ruling powers of Japan fared rather better than those of Germany.

You two should have a game of Go to settle it. :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

True but under unconditional surrender you get nowt. The ruling powers of Japan fared rather better than those of Germany.

---

Mmmmm, under unconditional surrender the victor gets to say what you get, that's all.

Do you not think Germany had a lot more to answer for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Which position are you taking - that they were open to Western influence prior to Imperial incursions into the Far East or that they were insular and tended to view foreign influence with a degree of hostility?

The Chinese did not exactly go a bundle on foreign influences either but like the Japanese were interested in trade and science. Would the Japanese have contemplated war with America in 41 if US influence had not extended across the Pacific?

---

I'm sure if no-one ever came into contact with anyone else there would never be any wars.

I don't know how this particular branch of the discussion got going or what purpose it serves.

Is the question 'is America at fault for Japan joining in in WW2'?

---

Not sure to be honest - Snee was pointing out that modern Japan was nothing like as bad as Submission was suggesting and got picked up on a comment regarding the history of Japan which has wheeled the whole discussion well away from the much more fascinating topic of tentacle pron (which as far as I am aware can never actually happen irl).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Which position are you taking - that they were open to Western influence prior to Imperial incursions into the Far East or that they were insular and tended to view foreign influence with a degree of hostility?

The Chinese did not exactly go a bundle on foreign influences either but like the Japanese were interested in trade and science. Would the Japanese have contemplated war with America in 41 if US influence had not extended across the Pacific?

---

Oh mine is a simple position, the Japanese weren't ill-informed, they weren't backwards. The shogunate collapsed and Japan again looked outwards as they had before. Now you may argue that the American squadron hastened the collapse of the shogunate, in which case surely you'd be arguing for the facts that by doing so the Americans returned freedom to the people of Japan, who were virtually imprisoned by the shogunate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Not sure to be honest - Snee was pointing out that modern Japan was nothing like as bad as Submission was suggesting and got picked up on a comment regarding the history of Japan which has wheeled the whole discussion well away from the much more fascinating topic of tentacle pron (which as far as I am aware can never actually happen irl).

---

Nah, what started this was his response to me. I was saying the Japs didn't have any right to be more upset than anyone else about WW2, nuke or no. He countered by saying they've always been bullied by the rest of the world etc etc. There followed a Wiki-based argument where two people selectively pull bits out of net sources in an attempt to prove their point. I have failed to bring the discussion around to the original point.

What's tentacle porn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

True but under unconditional surrender you get nowt. The ruling powers of Japan fared rather better than those of Germany.

---

Mmmmm, under unconditional surrender the victor gets to say what you get, that's all.

Do you not think Germany had a lot more to answer for?

---

Japan was responsible for some naughty stuff too. I do lean towards the view that the surrender and the role of the nuclear weapons were not a complete match and that the US had a broader political purpose in utilising the weapons. One might view this as immoral or amoral but the Red Army had become a formidable force and Truman needed a lever in negotiating the post war world with Stalin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Not sure to be honest - Snee was pointing out that modern Japan was nothing like as bad as Submission was suggesting and got picked up on a comment regarding the history of Japan which has wheeled the whole discussion well away from the much more fascinating topic of tentacle pron (which as far as I am aware can never actually happen irl).

---

Nah, what started this was his response to me. I was saying the Japs didn't have any right to be more upset than anyone else about WW2, nuke or no. He countered by saying they've always been bullied by the rest of the world etc etc. There followed a Wiki-based argument where two people selectively pull bits out of net sources in an attempt to prove their point. I have failed to bring the discussion around to the original point.

What's tentacle porn?

---

Wiki arguments are cool :shifty:

The Japanese have a fetish for tentacle sex - must be all the seafood :idunno: Obviously this is not a practical proposition irl but I am informed it is popular in cartoons - so SGG tells me anyhoo. :unsure:

Japan really wasn't in the same league as Germany Biggles. Germany was not only directly responsible for the war but it's governing structure was responsible for apalling suffering all over Europe. None of that could be feasibly left intact. Most of the people in charge were either killed in conflict, executed, committed suicide or were prosecuted for war crimes.

I tend to think that 3 days is a very long time in war to hold out before a second strike, especially if you have ulterior motives beyond surrender for making it. As to the first strike, well I go back to a past point. When an era loses so many people to war it dehumanises the living. I doubt there was much sympathy for the Japs and I completely understand why. And I'm sure the benefits off letting off those nukes were manyfold. That doesn't mean they were all the cause or rational for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Wiki arguments are cool :shifty:

The Japanese have a fetish for tentacle sex - must be all the seafood :idunno: Obviously this is not a practical proposition irl but I am informed it is popular in cartoons - so SGG tells me anyhoo. :unsure:

---

I'll never look at LOTR the Fellowship in the same way again :unsure:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manicgeek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Which position are you taking - that they were open to Western influence prior to Imperial incursions into the Far East or that they were insular and tended to view foreign influence with a degree of hostility?

The Chinese did not exactly go a bundle on foreign influences either but like the Japanese were interested in trade and science. Would the Japanese have contemplated war with America in 41 if US influence had not extended across the Pacific?

---

Oh mine is a simple position, the Japanese weren't ill-informed, they weren't backwards. The shogunate collapsed and Japan again looked outwards as they had before. Now you may argue that the American squadron hastened the collapse of the shogunate, in which case surely you'd be arguing for the facts that by doing so the Americans returned freedom to the people of Japan, who were virtually imprisoned by the shogunate.

---

I don't believe Snee's position is that they were backward or ill informed either but that their reaction to US intervention was one of a people who had become accustomed to an insular view of foreign intervention. They subsequently embraced an aspect of politics that was popular at the time - Empire.

One might view the US role as liberating or one might consider it an ongoing process of securing influence in the region (or indeed a bit of both).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Wiki arguments are cool :shifty:

The Japanese have a fetish for tentacle sex - must be all the seafood :idunno: Obviously this is not a practical proposition irl but I am informed it is popular in cartoons - so SGG tells me anyhoo. :unsure:

---

I'll never look at LOTR the Fellowship in the same way again :unsure:.

---

:unsure: There was a donkey too OMG!

I suppose I'll have to take responsibility for igniting this fire-cracker string of debate.

I was just pissed off because Submission was displaying racism. To date, he has started three threads decrying Japanese culture when one would have sufficed.

I was just endeavouring to tell him to stfu, albeit, somewhat ineptly, it now appears.

Sorry peeps. Also sorry for any errors in this post. I don't have spellcheck at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalice

I suppose I'll have to take responsibility for igniting this fire-cracker string of debate.

I was just pissed off because Submission was displaying racism. To date, he has started three threads decrying Japanese culture when one would have sufficed.

I was just endeavouring to tell him to stfu, albeit, somewhat ineptly, it now appears.

Sorry peeps. Also sorry for any errors in this post. I don't have spellcheck at work.

---

Sorry if i'm stating the obvious here, however you must know that the peson behind the Submission character is using more than one persona here. All pricks obviously, but still using more than one persona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalice

I suppose I'll have to take responsibility for igniting this fire-cracker string of debate.

I was just pissed off because Submission was displaying racism. To date, he has started three threads decrying Japanese culture when one would have sufficed.

I was just endeavouring to tell him to stfu, albeit, somewhat ineptly, it now appears.

Sorry peeps. Also sorry for any errors in this post. I don't have spellcheck at work.

---

Sorry if i'm stating the obvious here, however you must know that the peson behind the Submission character is using more than one persona here. All pricks obviously, but still using more than one persona.

---

Perhaps I'm being naive, JP.

But I'm taking the posts at face value until things have been proved otherwise.

I'm not saying you're wrong, like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Sorry if i'm stating the obvious here, however you must know that the peson behind the Submission character is using more than one persona here. All pricks obviously, but still using more than one persona.

---

Perhaps I'm being naive, JP.

But I'm taking the posts at face value until things have been proved otherwise.

I'm not saying you're wrong, like.

---

Fair do's mate, disparate pricks it is. Makes little difference in the great scheme of things.

Gonnae no say "proved otherwise" tho' it really dead annoys me. Not saying it's wrong or anything it just grates on my nerves.

Not Billy then? :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Gonnae no say "proved otherwise" tho' it really dead annoys me. Not saying it's wrong or anything it just grates on my nerves.

---

I mark that one down for future reference then. :happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I don't believe Snee's position is that they were backward or ill informed either but that their reaction to US intervention was one of a people who had become accustomed to an insular view of foreign intervention. They subsequently embraced an aspect of politics that was popular at the time - Empire.

One might view the US role as liberating or one might consider it an ongoing process of securing influence in the region (or indeed a bit of both).

---

I think you'll find if you go and look that history shows they were expansionist (Empire builders) before their enforced isolation. So they couldn't possibly have embraced a political aspect that they had been living by for centuries before their isolation. Their Empirical ambitions had nothing to do with western influence, they merely returned to their militaristic expansionist ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Not Billy then? :shifty:

---

As far as I can tell, no, but I could be wrong :idunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manicgeek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I don't believe Snee's position is that they were backward or ill informed either but that their reaction to US intervention was one of a people who had become accustomed to an insular view of foreign intervention. They subsequently embraced an aspect of politics that was popular at the time - Empire.

One might view the US role as liberating or one might consider it an ongoing process of securing influence in the region (or indeed a bit of both).

---

I think you'll find if you go and look that history shows they were expansionist (Empire builders) before their enforced isolation. So they couldn't possibly have embraced a political aspect that they had been living by for centuries before their isolation. Their Empirical ambitions had nothing to do with western influence, they merely returned to their militaristic expansionist ways.

---

As I remember it Japan had very little territorial activity outwith its own borders apart a couple of advetures in Korea. In comparison to most countries it did not engage in a lot of conquest. It was quite often at war with itself though and numerous dynasties and war lords ruled the country. The self imposed seclusion was maybe a bit odd but it was the antithesis of European and US expansion. The US naval blockade and resultant treaty that opened the country was a source of considerable anger and (importantly) shame in Japan. That opening up Japan to trade might have been a good thing did not negate the dishonour felt by a forced treaty. If we are to look at Japanese history and culture seriously we must consider the cultural impact of the US actions as well as the purely economic. The follow on from opening Japan up was a Government that was much more outward looking and obsessed with military power. In this respect the US set off a chain of events that ultimately resulted in Pearl Harbour - although to be fair there was no way that this could have been predicted at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Les

As I remember it Japan had very little territorial activity outwith its own borders apart a couple of advetures in Korea.

---

Tell the truth now, Les. How old are you.

I dunno, but Methuselah was his fag at school, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Les

As I remember it Japan had very little territorial activity outwith its own borders apart a couple of advetures in Korea.

---

Tell the truth now, Les. How old are you.

---

A bit + some

:snooty: doesn't make you a bad person like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Les

As I remember it Japan had very little territorial activity outwith its own borders apart a couple of advetures in Korea.

---

Tell the truth now, Les. How old are you.

---

Les = Hero.

He's actually only 23 but has flitted thro' space and time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Tell the truth now, Les. How old are you.

---

Les = Hero.

He's actually only 23 but has flitted thro' space and time.

---

It takes its toll but

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

As I remember it Japan had very little territorial activity outwith its own borders apart a couple of advetures in Korea.

---

China, India... in fact their 'little territorial activity outwith its own borders' was only after the Koreans refused to become tributary to Japan and join them in their war against China.

Oh and that war was about making parts of China tributary to Japan as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manicgeek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

As I remember it Japan had very little territorial activity outwith its own borders apart a couple of advetures in Korea.

---

China, India... in fact their 'little territorial activity outwith its own borders' was only after the Koreans refused to become tributary to Japan and join them in their war against China.

Oh and that war was about making parts of China tributary to Japan as well...

---

:mellow: Which period?