[...] Just don’t misunderstand the cause. Regardless of the sale figures of a few jingoistic comic books, the biggest cause of any change is a growing sense of anxiety about all of the crazy neighbors than a change in public opinion towards national pride. Or at least that’s how I see it. [...]

Ermm… well, at the risk of getting more flaming hot letters from Chinese and Japanese, I think this is remarkably on point. It costs China very, very little to act like a petulant child over the apologies. I think China has found out that this strategy is leading to diminishing and more and more unsympathetic returns, however.

Allow me to channel Howard Dean for a moment, but “ARGGGGGGGGGGGGH”. Now with that out of the way, I have to say I absolutely hate hate hate “saving face” as an explanation of anything. Why individuals do not like apologizing is simple, it is a matter of stubborness and pride in refusing to admit they were wrong. Why this universal failing is always charachterized as “saving face” when concerning Asia is beyond me. Well actually no, there is an explanation (channeling Said).

At the risk of contradicting esteemed members, but in China it’s a whole different ballgame when it comes to “apologizing”. The face thing for them is almost life-and-death. I live it every day. I’ve had a brutal education these past years in China (I’m sitting listining to one of their atrocious New Years Extravaganzas right now), but was considerably helped by a book called “Chinese Characteristics” by one Arthur Henderson Smith. Written over 100 years ago, the book is still 90% spot-on in it’s analysis of the Chinese mind. I see verification every day. It’s remarkable.
It’s out of print now, but not too hard to find copies.

Dan, you do realize that Plunge is not a Chinese nationalist don’t you? I agree, a lot of China’s political problems during the last century and a half were the result of internal factors stemming from the Chinese body politic (political decentralization, rebel movements). However, some of the examples you cite are the direct results of foreign powers. Suffice it to say, without the 2nd sino-Japanese war, China’s socio-political environment would not have been destabilized enough to allow Mao and the communists to come to power. If one can attribute (wrongfully I might add) Japan as a cause of the economic success of Korea or Taiwan, then should Japan also not be attributed as to the cause of communisms rise in China?

Also mr. Quid, I also watched the New Years craptacular on CCTV-4 (can’t say no to tradition) but I would caution on using 100 year old books as any sort of behavioural guide. This goes without saying, but sociology has become much more nuanced and sophisticated since then and even in the last 50 years what was regarded as conventional wisdom has become painfully outdated (see Chrysanthemum and the Sword).

Plunge.. Plunge.. Plunge… Numerous Prime ministers have apologized on Personal and Public levels. Being as they are the representative of the nation, that counts as the nation apologizing when the PM does it on a public level correct? Or does the PM’s actions only represent the country when it could be interpreted as something bad? Because if the PM doesn’t represent the country, then people who say a PM can’t visit Yasukuni because he represents the country need to cut out their double standards.

I think Darin, that the unacceptance or unwillingness to believe in a Japanese apology stems from this issue. What good is an apology if it is delivered with a backhand slap to the face (e.g. Yasukuni visits)

PS: The Core-wide response to the Boxer Rebellion is a model for modern internationalism.

Jing, okay fair enough… But then the issue is “we don’t believe the apology for said reason”, not, “there has never been an apology”, yet many people continue to ignore the fact that their have been numerous apologies.

I would recommend a visit to Yasukuni to anyone for a few reasons. One it is a really beautiful place, and definitely has some of the best sakura viewing in Tokyo. When I first went, I was all physiqued up to get pissed at Japan and Yasukuni in general, yes, I used to be against Yasukuni and the Japanese government on the issue. But when I actually went for myself, I found that a majority of the stuff people had told me about Yasukuni, was wrong. You can’t believe everything you read, especially in blogs, and even in the BBC—you need to confirm facts for yourself whenever possible. The first time I went, I went with probably my best friend, who is Chinese, and we both left thinking, “well, that certainly wasn’t nearly as bad as everyone says it is.” We don’t completely agree on the issue, but we agree much more then I do with most people.

Darin: my experiences are remarkably similar to yours, albeit Yasukuni was the end of that road; the Nanjing Massacre memorial was the first step.

Jing: I’ve seen harder figures in print; this is the best source I can find online, which puts the figures at 28,000 Taiwanese and 23,000 Koreans. Non-nationals account for approximately 1% of those interred. Sorry it’s only in Japanese.

One more tidbit from the Yasukuni web page :

When His Majesty the Emperor as well as the Prime Minister pay an official visit to other countries they will always visit the national cemeteries of those countries, where those who have given their lives for that country are laid to rest, or a memorial or shrine and pay their respects by offering a wreath. This is truly a national ceremony held in the country of their visit. A similar ceremony is not held in our country for visiting heads of state. It is regrettable that our country does not fulfill its duties as a nation. To bring an end to war is the earnest wish of mankind.

Time for part 2.

Ah Darin, that is where you are wrong. All you would have to do is poll the Diet and see how many agree with the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister apologizes, it is a PERSONAL apology and depending on the man and his actions shows the sincerety of it. The Prime Minister only represents his entire nation when, in the end, his words are signed off on by the Diet.

Please remember Japan has tried ONCE and only ONCE to have an actual apology, one representative of the people and signed by the Diet. It was an abismal failure. Go ahead and actually read the link I gave you and you can see why.

Curzon understands this, he just trys to ignore it for the ‘great good’ that Japan has done over the years.

Dare I suggest a contrarian argument in favour of the Chinese position:

When both countries in question, China and Japan, value “face” so feverishly, does it not make sense for that to be the final metric as to whether Japan has made a sincere turn-about from the Showa days?

I mean, we’re all debating here about how China unreasonably insists that Japan needs to lose face for it to show remorse.

What I’m saying here is that since Japanese culture values face to a certain extent as well, then it can issues apologies ad nauseum as long as it won’t lose face and it won’t do squat to its internal perceptions as to its role in the war.

I’m just throwing that as an idea. But it’s based on a few anecdotal observations:
Coming from HK, where there’s a certain extent of Western cultural influence, I’ve found that a lot of people from there find “not liking to apologize” (as Running Dog puts it is) is a rather alien and pathological concept.
And yet people in HK will get just as riled up about the perceived wishy-washy attitude taken by Japan towards its history.
It seems a bit contradictory, if the hypothesis that Curzon and Running Dog is advancing is correct.

As for Yasukuni, all I know is that it is operated (not necessarily visited) by people who have no hesitation to embrace historical revisionism. How to judge politicians that visit it, despite this knowledge, I suppose, is a matter of opinion.

Dan wrote: “Responsible countries quell terrorist uprisings. Irresponsible ones defend them.”

The Boxers were not terrorists like al-Qaeda, which launch attacks in other countries. The Boxers fought for the independence of China from Western domination. They were supported by members of the Chinese Imperial Army and the Qing court. The Boxers could be regarded as Chinese patriots fighting for their nation’s sovereignty. (However, their attacks against Christians and foreign diplomats were uncivilized.)

Dan wrote: “The Core-wide response to the Boxer Rebellion is a model for modern internationalism.”

The suppression of the Boxer Rebellion is actually a model of racist colonialism, instead of good internationalism. According to Wikipedia, “Troops from all nations (in the Eight-Nation Alliance) engaged in plunder, looting and rape.”

The 300,000 figure is outdated Mihwa, current CCP estimates have inflated the figure to 340,000. How they get that is a myustery, as it’s a big jump from the 110,000 figure estimated at the 1946 trials (9 years after the fact(.

How is Yasukuni like Auschiwitz? No one was killed there; it memorilizes the dead… but silly me, all the matters it that we bash Japan. Logic and facts be damedn.

Dan: Racism and colonialism go hand in hand. Just ask the hundreds of African, Asian, and native cultures that experienced oppressive colonialism first hand. The Boxer Rebellion happened at the end of the 19th Century, which was a period of rampant colonialism.

According to the Wikipedia article I mentioned before:
” Troops from all nations engaged in plunder, looting and rape. German troops in particular were criticized for their enthusiasm in carrying out Kaiser Wilhelm II’s July 27 order to “make the name German remembered in China for a thousand years so that no Chinaman will ever again dare to even squint at a German”. ”
Denouncing that as racism is not overplaying the race card.

Dan wrote: “the Interational Force put down the Boxers because they were anti-connectivity terrorists”
The 7 Western nations and Japan put down the Boxers mainly to advance their own greedy interests. According to Wikipedia:
“The Boxer uprising was concentrated in northern China where the European powers had begun to demand territorial, railroad and mining concessions. Imperial Germany responded … by seizing the port of Qingdao. The next month, a Russian squadron took possession of Lushun, ... Britain and France followed, taking possession of Weihai and Zhanjiang respectively.”

The Boxers resorted to violence because the Qing government was too weak to ward off foreign invaders.
“Boxer activity developed in Shandong province in March 1898 in response to both foreign penetration and the failure of the Imperial court … whose shortcomings had been shown graphically in China’s defeat by Japan in 1895.”

The Boxers were motivated by self-defense of China. They were totally different from al-Qaeda, whose aim is to carry out Jihad against selected non-Muslim targets anywhere in the world.

Mi-Hwa

Dan: Racism and colonialism go hand in hand. Just ask the hundreds of African, Asian, and native cultures that experienced oppressive colonialism first hand.

You mean the millions of Africans who saw their standard of living improve under administration by European powers, or the millions of Africans who died prematurely after the fall of those empires?

Re: your criticism of the International Force, are you arguing that only perfect interventions are worth making?

The 7 Western nations and Japan put down the Boxers mainly to advance their own greedy interests. According to Wikipedia:
“The Boxer uprising was concentrated in northern China where the European powers had begun to demand territorial, railroad and mining concessions. Imperial Germany responded “¦ by seizing the port of Qingdao. The next month, a Russian squadron took possession of Lushun, ... Britain and France followed, taking possession of Weihai and Zhanjiang respectively.”Â?

Again, I’m not sure of the argument. The Qing Government was unable to maintain order, so the International Force stepped in. Are you advocating a globalization where only detrimenal actions may be taken, and those that coincide with economic goals are forbidden?

The Boxers resorted to violence because the Qing government was too weak to ward off foreign invaders.

... or local terrorists, for that matter. In the same way, al Qaeda in Iraq resorted to violecne beacuse the Ba’ath remnants were too weak to ward off foreign invaders.

The Boxers were motivated by self-defense of China. They were totally different from al-Qaeda, whose aim is to carry out Jihad against selected non-Muslim targets anywhere in the world.

True. Which is why they are like al Qaeda in Iraq, whose aim is to carry out holy war against globalization and non-True-Believers in specific countries.

Jing,

From Embracing Defeat, around page 50

Coming Home… Perhaps

In the wake of defeat, approximately 6.5 million Japanese were stranged in Asia, Siberia, and the Pacific Ocean Area. Roughly 3.5 million of them were soldiers and sailers. The remainder were civilians, including many women and children—a huge and generally forgotten cadre of middle-and lower-class individuals who had been sent out to help develop the imperium. ....

For these millions of individuals, surrender merely marked the beginninf of a new stage in lives of escalating uncertainly and brutalization….

In Manchuria alone, it is estimated that 179,000 Japanese civilians and 66,000 military personnel perished int eh confusion and the harsh winter that followed caputilation. Uprooted civilians in Manchuria and elsewhere in northern China usually were able to bring with them only what they could carry, which commonly meant little more than their smallest children and paltry, soon-to-be-exhausted quantities of food….

Many of these refugees wre also driven to leave their youngest children…

The total number of Japanese who surrendered to Chineseforces and were forced to work or fight for either side in the Chinese civil war is unknown. More than a year after surrender, it was reported that some sixty-eight thousand Japanese taken prisoner in Manchuria were stil being employed by Chinese forces, mosly on the communist side….

You are right that the worst murders were conducted by the Soviets, though the death toll was in the hundred thousands.

I think you need to read more carefully Dan.

You said “Agreed””?yet China has yet to apologize for the murder for tens, if not a hundred, thousand civlian Japanese deaths after the end of the war. Why not?”

The book said “In Manchuria alone, it is estimated that 179,000 Japanese civilians and 66,000 military personnel perished in the confusion and the harsh winter that followed caputilation..”

On the issue of Japanese prisoners in Soviet gulags “About 575,000 Japanese prisoners of war were sent to the Siberian camps after the war ended in August 1945. 473,000 of them later returned home, and about 55,000 died in Russia, according to the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. It is unknown what happened to the remaining 47,000 people and Japanese authorities have repeatedly said that they might have been sent to North Korea or the Manchurian region of China.

At the risk of sending this discussion off track, I will throw in my understanding of the Sino-Japanese War and the forces it unleashed. Ironically, its pretext was a force very similar to the Boxers, the Korean “Tong Hak”Â? or Eastern Learning movement, and the Righteous Armies, both of these latter upset with the landlord class’ exploitation of tenant farmers, and the opening of Korea to foreign influences, which included Japan. One foreign influence that especially infuriated the Tonghaks was Christianity. When the Korean royal family appealed to China for military assistance, the Japanese intervened to first defeat the Tonghaks, and then served an ultimatum upon the Chinese to vacate Korea, which they refused to do on the grounds that Korea was a vassal state, and that Chinese troops had been sent in response to a legitimate request by the Korean sovereign. My readings suggest that the Japanese state of the period was greatly admired by modern Asian nationalists (as opposed to Asian traditionalists, i.e., Boxers and Tonghaks), primarily for the way in which Japan had managed to modernize, while retaining its essential Japanese character. The war should have given these modernist-nationalists reason for pause, particularly in light of the fact that Japan kept six and a half modern battalions in Korea after the war had ended. But one fact is undeniable. The war sent shock waves throughout China, thereby exacerbating conditions which were already giving rise to the Boxer phenomenon. To declare the Boxers to be terrorists is, I believe, over-simplification. More likely they were both reformist and traditionalist, seeking to force the Qing government to reform, while striking down those icons of Chinese inferiority within China itself, the foreign communities, Christian missionaries, and Chinese Christians. The methods they used appear to be no different than those later employed by both the Nationalist and Communist revolutionary cadres, the difference being that these latter were modernists as opposed to those seeking a return to the allegedly more glorious past. Thus the “terror”Â? they induced must be put within the context of their irregular composition, their spontaneous nature, and the context of social violence within the China of the day. As for denying that the Boxers were patriots, it is a point that cannot reasonably be made. It makes as much sense to deny the patriotism of the Waffen SS, or the Viet Cong. Patriotism can be found within all shades of any political spectrum. But it is not holy water, and does not wash away “sins”Â? committed in its name. As for the anti-Boxer campaign required to lift the siege of the Foreign Legations, under international standards of the period, those nations whose legations were under siege had a right to deploy a military force to protect their property and personnel, in that the Chinese government had proven itself unwilling or incapable of doing so. It had been years since I read international law, but I am unaware of any dictum that allows a nation which adjudges its armed forces incapable of enforcing internal order or foreign policy to call upon mobs or uncontrolled private citizens to do so, targeting the personnel and property of those foreign nations who displease it. Although I’m sure that the current President of Iran would argue such a right. Mi Hwa’s point about racism often being the handmaiden of colonialism (or neo-colonialism) is valid, but so is Dan’s counterpoint. The sad truth is that many colonial regimes did more for their subject peoples than the indigenous governments which followed. But even paternalistic colonial regimes were tinged with racism, and the great masses of their subject peoples were denied a voice in how their affairs were governed. This brings us to the unpleasant truth that not all political cultures are equal, and indeed, some are demonstrably inferior to all but the politically conditioned and blind. The Chinese of the 1840-60s could accept that the West was far ahead of China in science and technology. The Sino-Japanese war showed them that Western science and technology could be successfully adopted by Asians, and the Russo-Japanese war showed them that an Asian state who mastered both could employ them to defeat a powerful European nation. Thus by 1905, the consensus among ordinary Chinese had likely swung to the Qing’s disadvantage. New leadership was required. The question which intrigues me is: Was it the men (Sun Yat Sen, Mao Ze-dong) who made the moment? Or the moment which made the men? My inclination is the latter. Those Japanese who died in Manchuria after the war (when the Chinese civil war had resumed in all its ferocity), are casualties of war no matter how they died. No one ever asked them to invade China or reap the benefits thereof. Likewise the Japanese government would not be ill served by extending an apology to the Chinese people that does not require nuanced explanation. My apologies to those I’ve bored.

PS

Thus the “terror”Â? they induced must be put within the context of their irregular composition, their spontaneous nature, and the context of social violence within the China of the day.

This reminds me of Arabist defense of “good terrorism” as against “bad terrorism.” The argument, that though two actions and intentions are the same, one is different from the ohter because of context, is incorrect.

Perhaps, normatively, some terrorism is “better” than the other. It doesn’t change the identity of terrorism, however.

Dan, thats a mighty interesting moral compass you have there. Its a slippery road in equating being booted out of your house in occupied territory(let us not forget that the Soviet army was in control of Manchuria following WW2) to being directly killed by deliberate IJA reprisals against civilians.

Actually no, its not very interesting. It’s just a very shallow and feeble attempt to find any excuse for the Japanese.

Dan: There’s a big difference between civilians dying accidentally, and civilians being massacred in war crimes. The Japanese did the latter at the Nanking Massacre and at Unit 731, where thousands were cruelly killed with medical experiments. It is very ignorant to equate the two kinds of civilian deaths.

This looks to me like another “it’s okay to kill any and every japanese person because other japanese people killed any and every chinese/korean person they could”.. or “japanese civilians that were killed or suffered under any circumstances are not victims of anything because they deserved it” argument.

no one is saying it was okay what imperial japan did… but to say innocent civilians got what they deserved because the countries leaders did bad things, is just absurd. if that’s the way you guys want to play it, then every single last person on this earth can be killed at any moment and no one can say a damn thing about it.

come-on guys.. two wrongs don’t make a right. remember? did we forget the basic principles of the value of human life on this one? prosecuting people for their crimes i’m in favor of… killing a farmer because of he’s japanese? isn’t that called a hate crime?

Snow—certainly the governments in all these countries think that encouraging this nationalism is in their national interest, no?

No one is saying any such thing Dan, Curzon, and Darin. I don’t see how one can extrapolate “In Manchuria alone, it is estimated that 179,000 Japanese civilians and 66,000 military personnel perished in the confusion and the harsh winter that followed caputilation..” to being 179,000 and 66,000 were killed by communist guerillas following the war. The entire issue is being deliberately obfuscated to the point of incoherence.

The book is suggesting that those Japanese may have died from freezing in the winter and running out of food, while making the long trek home through chaotic situations. That’s why I said “civilians dying accidentally”Â?

Would the Armenians killed ‘17-’18 also be “accidental” death, then? After all, they died of exposure, hunger, and random violence (after forced evictions and a death-walk home)....