Talk:Anti-Japanese sentiment

General Comments

<<<Intranetusa>>> I'd like to say that in my opinion, this Sino/Korea - Japan tension thing is the dumbest shit in history.

---

Piccolo66.68.34.174 02:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC) \\this article was waaaaay more neutral than I expected it to be; but THis is actually a bad article. Whether to attribute it to bias or mere idiocy is just wrong, because Ive realized that wikipedia actually does do a pristine job with regard to the facts. SOme edits will take care of this though. It contains some common misconceptions, and uses the "high end" of statistics only with regards to how much damage japan did in WW2

I've glimpsed through the article. I don't really think it was biased one way or another. Sense this is such a emotional subject I hope people are careful of what they write.-Usni

Poo-T, are you sure about what you know about Korean history and the facts in the past? Do you think that you are unbiased to edit any articles relating to Korean history? I might see Japan the same way as you do about Korea. (a Korean student)

I know I'm not a God :P) Then, could you write the reason to write to the top of the talk, not related to the other discussions, without logging in, without a timestamp. And I'm not a God, so I can't understand what you want with me. If you want to change the text I wrote, please specify the part. Is this the page you want to change? What we can do is discuss with resources. As you know, there are many records about Korea in Japan, so discussing between Koreans and Japanese would make a better description. --Poo-T 6 Nov 2004

---

Olivier, I deleted a part of writing about Korea, for it included personal opinions.Could you also point out which writings should be rewritten? You can help the cleaning up process with discussions.--Poo-T 11 Aug 2004

This article needs to have something way back, more comprehensive, like the 1895 war with Japan and World War II. Anti-Japanese sentiment wasnt a product of the 1990s economic gap. Wareware 08:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That, of course goes in the history section, which is not written yet. Also, it isn't explicitly stated but the current "China" section does not refer to Republic of China, but instead to People's Republic of China. Thus it wouldn't make sense to include them under the "China" section. Revth 03:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This piece is at most parts badly written, and its overall tone is racist. In my humble opinion, it should be deleted or fully rewritten.

Whenever anything about racism involving the Japanese is written, someone comes out claiming "racism" with no facts to back up their claims. Would you care to back them up with facts instead of "feeling" or maybe contribute about how the Japanese were discriminated against in your country? On the Asian Cup 2004, I have pictures, beside links already attached, that proves what I wrote. In fact, I have yet to write on many facts, like "A good Jap is a dead Jap" that an American general said, similar to "A good Indian is a dead Indian" or renaming of "Jap Street" in Texas. Revth 12:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, it's too long, especially about history and Asian cup 2004. Asian cup is just a case, and it's difficult to allege 'A historical event is a reason of a emotion'. I'm going to modify the text. Poo-T 18 Aug 2004

Parts of "I am a Japanese" section are near incoherent. Should minor (and seemingly unsubstantiated) instances of vaguely anti-Japanese feelings be included? The general tone of that section, and to a lesser extent the entire article, is rather hostile. FriedBunny 10:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The author alleges that Jiang Zemin, Deng Xiaoping, Mao Zedong et al have slandered Japan and sought to improve their political standing by spreading anti-Japanese sentiment, without any scrap of proof. He seems convinced that they are trying to cover up their wrongdoings by demonizing the Jpanaese.

The article also lacks a consideration for the the hard facts of the matter; that Japan did behave in a barbaric matter, as the Nanjing Massacre, and the Three All Campaign (Kill All, Burn All, Destroy All) in the later part of the Sino-Japanese War, not to mention the biological warfare experiments (such as Unit 731) on Chinese POWs.

The author further alleges that a New York Times writer has spread inflammatory comments about Japan without even providing concrete evidence, or naming said writer.

If the author has evidence for the alleged denial of services to the Japanese National Team in the Asian Cup 2004, please post them. An external link or a (Credited) picture would be appreciated.

Finally, the author seems to think that every Chinese, every Korean of both factions, behave in an anti-Japanese manner. This is not true at all! Racism is not unversal; not all chinese or Koreans or Americans behave in this manner.

First of all, Mao Zedong nor Deng Xiaoping are not credited with using anti-Japanese sentiments. In fact, they are credited for not turning to anti-Japanese sentiments as an easy way out. Only Jiang Zemin is credited, but as his move to consolidate his power. You never even read the article.

Three All Campaign (三光作戦) is not a Japanese plan. It is Republic of China's plan against PRoC forces. Funny thing is, the Chnese character "光" has meaning "to completely" only in Chinese but it is used on a Japanese plan. In Japanese, by the way, this would be called "a war of extermination" (殲滅戦). Much like the Vietnam War, communist forces used small villages to base their operations unlike the RoC army that used cities as their bases. Increasingly becoming paranoid of inflitrations, RoC commenced Three All Campaign to try to destroy the support communist troops were getting. The biggest proof that this is not a Japanese plan is the claim of Nanjing Massacre itself. Was the city burned and destroyed like Warsaw Uprising or like even an average siege? No, only deaths are recorded and even those claim that massacre occured pointed out that people were marched out to an open ground before shot.

Unit 731 is in dispute, and that makes it a POV article. Also, even if it is true, the member of Unit 731 behaved barbaric and that does not mean Japan was barbaric. You can't claim that Japan was barbaric. Does the genocide of Jewish make German and Austrian as well as occupied area or even French barbaric? Does barbaric behaviors in battles on the Eastern front make German and Russian barbaric? Does the Italy's use of nerve gases against Ethiopian troops make them barbaric? Does the torture of Iraqi prisoner make American barbaric? Why does only against Japan does someone comes out saying "Japan is barbaric!"? This is precisely the anti-Japanese sentiment this article will and should address.

If you look at Unit 731, "In August 2002, the Tokyo District Court acknowledged the existence of Unit 731 and its biological warfare activities, but ruled that all compensation issues were settled by the Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China of September 29, 1972." So, if the source is trustworthy, the past existence of Unit 731 is no longer in disupte. But, in response to your question, what matters to me is that people apologize for their mistakes. Japan alone, of all the countries and their associated atrocities that you've listed, has remained silent about and even defensive of their past actions. Many people like me believe that Japan is practicing mainstream abuse of historical revisionism, and in all outward appearances Japan seems proud of its past "achievements." Has there been an investigation by the Japanese government into its past crimes? Has it every officially apologized for its history? Their mistakes? These are the things I would like to see before I ever look on Japan as a nation that regrets what it did. Japan never admitted its mistakes. In fact, the existence of such a thing like Yasukuni Shrine, where convicted, dead war criminals are enshrined, and the fact that the prime minister visits it to pay respect to those who have done the human race evil... It's an outrage: consider if Germany did that with Hitler, supposing that they found the body, or if Russia did that with Stalin. What is Japan's rationale for this stupendously, surrealistically bizarre tribute? -doesPHalt 12 Nov 2004

That is ridiculous. What, do you want the whole country to keep saying "I'm Sorry, You Win!" for crimes commited by their predecessors, with which the current generation had nothing to do? This kind of infantile attitude makes it seem you just want to rub it on them for losing the War, and the mere act of bullying them into saying "Uncle!" somehow makes your position seem a bit superior. Japan has abolished their rights to have an offensive military force, as per their Constitution; which other country has done that? They're also currently the least beliggernt nation in the world as of now, whether in their relation with others or their own people. China does not even come close, even without their nuclear arsenal or draconian limitations on civil liberty. Germany has banned all icons of Nazism. No depiction of Nazi Germany is even allowed in any media products sold there. Does that make the survivors of the Holocaust happy? The problem is that pre-1945 Japan had no distinctly identifiable and separate "face" as did Nazi Germany versus "normal" Germany. Germans took the easy way out, by placing all blames on Hitler and the Nazis, which were now forever gone and disowned. That is far from an "apology." The Chinese commited just as bad if not worse atrocities against their own people, during their Revolution and aftermath, such as the Tienanmen Square crackdown. Have they apologized for that? For that matter, WHO should they be apologizing to? Should Americans be apologizing for building their cities over the blood of the Natives?59.103.155.18 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard about any apology by Western country for the colonization. Have you? Also let me add that I have never heard about an apology by Chinese government about its 1979 invasion on Vietnam, Sino-Vietnamese War.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Did the Chinese in the Sino-Vietnamese War commit such atrocities as the Japanese? Was the Chinese invasion nearly as nefarious as that of the Japanese? Didn't the Vietnamese invade and take over Cambodia before they were invaded by the Chinese? It is not nearly as clear whose fault it was in this war as in the Sino-Japanese wars. Regarding your statement about apologies by Western countries, I agree with you. Shouldn't the Western countries apologize? Spartan

The exact date is provided and one can look up when that was made for New York Times. I have no idea if this can't be enough informations. Did you just pick up bit and pieces and make a new conclusion?

[1] Here is the external link of the denial of service. For an obvious reason, I can't find any Chinese source, state-run news services rearely let any bad informations out. For an information, except for the match against Bahrain, no public display of anti-Japanese sentiments were in Chinese media. There is an inconclusive report that Chinese media erased booing soundtracks and replaced them with hand claps and cheers, I couldn't find any source on that so it's not written.

Your sentence doesn't make sense. If your are saying there are some racists in every culture, that's precisely the point. If you read Ethnocentrism, you should realize that "Racism has to be universal". For example, food customs can be different from one country to another. In Japan and China, one can hold a rice bowl in their hand while eating. In Korea, this is called "the eating habit of slaves" and a bad habit. When a Korean sees Chinese or Japanese holding a rice bowl, he cannot help sneer that these men are behaving like a slave. This is from an upbringing in Korean customs and he probably doesn't realize that his attitude is wrong. It is not his fault that he is behaving like a racist, but the fault of society that doesn't teach torelance. Revth 17:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting, but I do not understand why you think that Koreans "sneer" at Chinese and Japanese for eating from a hand-held rice bowl. I'm a Korean (or at least half-Korean), and I've seen a lot of East Asians eat like that, and not once did I have a negative impression about them. In fact, even Koreans, when in a hurry, eat rice while holding their bowl. What, is this another stereotype Japanese racists have created to humiliate their Koreans neighbors or this a random guess? In my personal opinion, it's probably both.

P.S. "It is not his fault that he is behaving like a racist, but the fault of society that doesn't teach torelance." Where do you get your obviously biased views? I'm sure the Japanese society is not one renowned for admission of guilt or telling the truth, as one can see when viewing a whitewashed Japanese history textbook.

Tolerance?!! The Japanese don't even know the meaning of that word. Look how many instances of ethnic discrimination occur when Japanese (and racist) employers decline to employ a naturalized citizen of foreign ethnicity. At least Korean employers hire naturalized citizens. Not only that, even prime ministers in Japan speak publicly about the "pureness" of their people and scorn etnic minorities. And now, they want to talk about "tolerance in other countries". Now, that's what I call BS. Leonhart

Maybe you'd like to teach the South-Koreans about "tolerance" since you seem to know so much about it, where anti-Japanese propaganda is still being seeded into the Korean children (http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1550) not to mention all the violent demonstrations there. How about the Chinese hosts with their shameful behavior in the Asian Cup 2004? So some people of pre-1945 Japan were "barbaric," but it's the Koreans and Chinese who seem to be the barbarians right now. Perhaps you'd like to teach Americans about employing racial minorities, where even American-born Muslims are still being given the short end of the stick (a close friend's personal experience.) How about the Chinese government's tolerance of its own people, what with the Great Firewall and who knows how many other limitations upon their liberty. Japan is currently one of the least belligerent nations in the world as of now, with liberties and security for its people to rival any other modern country. The people and peoples who keep trying to BULLY Japan into doing what they'd like them to are what causes the real problems, IMO. 59.103.155.18 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you absolutely certain that "prime ministers in Japan speak publicly about the "pureness" of their people and scorn etnic minorities"?

中華 (zhonghua) is just the name for China, coming from 中國 (lit: "middle country"), a long-used name for China and 華夏, the valley that Chinese civilization grew out of. I doubt that Chinese who say zhonghua really think that they're in the "center of the rich", anymore than any Japanese think that 日本 (Japan) is the source of the rising sun. Neither do Chinese think that Americans (美國) are all beautiful, or that English (英國) are all heroes. Sheesh! Bringing up the name of China has no relevancy to the discussion, nor does the name of China cause Chinese people to be racist. --Yuje 05:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any mention of anti-Japanese sentiment in the US must include a mention (and a link) to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Many people still hold this grudge, especially older people. --Feitclub 05:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

易性革命 does not mean that current government's need to mudsling past government in order to justify its existance. It means that when a government fails to play its role in the stability of the country, a new government is justified to wage a conflict and replace the previous government. It is a classic example of "官逼民反", as first witnessed in the Shang-Zhou dynasty change. Very different from what's said in the article, therefore I deleted it. Wareware 05:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now this is getting really really stupid. Some of you people really over-emphasize japanese influence in Chinese politics. You wrote that Deng and company resorted to teaching the greatness of CCP and China and bashing Japan for their own political gain. Where on earth did you get that from? In fact, Deng did quite the opposite by abandoning socialism and moving towards capitalist reforms. And at no point did his government ever try to justify the killings in the Cultural Revolution by diverting it to japanese brutality. He even sort of denounced Mao by saying that it was a mistake that the Chinese people paid dearly for it. The movement of anti-japanese sentiment didnt begin in earnest until the late 70s to 80s when the issue of Daoyutai was brought to the spotlight and many Chinese (both taiwan ROC and china PRC) overseas engaged in passionate protests in "保釣運動". And why the hell would Jiang Zemin use this sentiment to consolidate his power? What's the connection and practical application of it? It seems that whoever wrote it just put down whatever spurious reason that came to his thick skull. The recent surge in anti-japanese sentiment is trigged not by the government's diversions or whatever, but by the nationalist feelings in many Chinese students. These students are different from the generation of the Tiannmen protests in that they are very natiionalistic and have confidence in their country. In the fifteen years after the protests, China grew politically and economically with stability and that provided the Chinese with a nationalistic feeling, that China is going to reclaim its status as a great regional power again, something that's eluded it for the past 150 years of war, foreign invasion and internal strife. That's where anti-japanese sentiments come from, not from government-directed pretexts for presumed internal weakness, but from a genuine sense of Chinese nationalism, stability, and bright prospects that the Chinese look forward to. This is why I deleted the whole dumbass and incoherent paragraph regarding the CCP's role in anti-japanese sentiment. The numbnut who wrote it really needs a reality check. Wareware 06:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's almost a year since the above was written and Wareware (who sounds like a Japanese but is actually a Taiwanese -- ethnic Chinese, presumably -- studying in the US) deleted the entire section, unchallenged. . It's hard to see what basis he has for dismissing the claims above and deleting this material.

First, it is perfectly possible that China would resort to anti-Japanese sentiment in order to divert attention from problems at home, especially during a period of rapid economic development when all kinds of frustrations are going to emerge. Of course they are not going to say straight out, 'Look, don't bother about the killings in the Cultural Revolution, just look at Japanese brutality instead.' But the effect is the same.

The view of the development anti-Japanese sentiment expressed in the deleted section is widely believed in Japan. Whether you disagree with it or not, it should be noted. As it reads now, the whole issue of anti-Japanese sentiment reads like it is a 'natural outcome' of all the vicious things the Japanese did during the war. This is not the case. These young people are not fresh out of the Nanjing Massacre, they never experienced any brutality at the hands of the Japanese. They are fresh out of the highly biassed Chinese education system. There is a history of anti-Japanese sentiment, and how it has been manipulated, that needs to be addressed. Simply noting Japanese wartime atrocities 60 years ago is not enough.

This section is quite true: 'The recent surge in anti-japanese sentiment is trigged not by the government's diversions or whatever, but by the nationalist feelings in many Chinese students. These students are different from the generation of the Tiannmen protests in that they are very natiionalistic and have confidence in their country.' But the constant use of Japan as a whipping boy in the official view of modern Chinese history is naturally going to direct all this youthful nationalism at Japan.

Thanks to the accretions and excisions by people like Wareware the entire article reads like an explanation of why the Chinese have kept up their hatred, and why they have the right to keep on hating the Japanese. This is not much of an improvement on the hysterical original version that everyone complained about.

Bathrobe 25 August 2005

I wrote a major revision on the US section because the previous version is just too damn stupid and uninformative. None of the examples fit with so-called anti-Japanese sentiment, because these things can be said just about any country and there's no specific evidence that it's "anti-Japan." They are more or less focused on the reporter's ignorance instead of observations of a national trend. They add nothing to the article and just look like a bunch of random ramblings by somebody who just scour the net to find whatever article as remotely related as possible. That's why I did a major revision focusing on the cause, rogression, and concrete examples that are definitely anti-Japanese, instead of lousy stuff that's patched up to fill up space. I think we should restructure the article into the history and examples for each particular country (certainly China and the US have their own reasons) instead of skimming the root causes and then coming up with spurious and random incidences and pointing the blame on victim countries. . Wareware 08:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the US artictle the writer mentions outsourcing. Outsourcing is when a business process (tire and wheel assembly) is moved to a company outside of the parent coporation (could be a foreign company or not). In the 80s companys were moving entire factiories over seas but they were still owned by the same coorporation. This is not outsourcing. --Mitrebox 07:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article really doesn't look particularly biased to me. I won't remove the 'disputed neutrality' box, since I haven't made any major changes, but I think I might come back and get rid of that soon. I realize it's a rather emotional topic, but this article seems to have been handled rather well. LordAmeth 17:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The textbooks

I think we really need a new article explaining the Japanese textbooks controversy. I'm surprised that such an article doesn't already exist. It's a major bone of contention between Japan, China, and Korea, and one of the major reasons for the bad relations between the countries, and it comes up year after year, and it's appeared again in the news recently. --Yuje 11:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sure if you wanna write something about that. dunt know much about that, since we dont have much info here. --User:Yacht (talk) 05:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

EVen that article isnt perfect; or instance, 300,000 is the statistic touted by the CCP; everywhere else the estimate is a low of 40,000 and a hight of 200,000 (statistics in the china was are very imprecise). I know statistics are never accurate but communist sympathizers can get a lot done by "trimming" every here and there. Yeah, i guess more anti-communist bias from me, but my bias is at least based on fact.

You may want to read Holocaust denial SYSS Mouse 16:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Textbook Treatment of the Nanking Massacre[2]Skyfiler 20:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

suggestions to this article

About the Asian Cup 2004 Final, this article only mentioned the "mbassador's car was severely damaged", but does not have a word about he cause, which is the Japanese team scored a goal in the match by hand!

+This article appears to me to be rather disparate, badly constructed and totally unquotable (mostly due to its lack of competent editorship). But I find little that suggests anything blatantly biased or uninformed. As someone had said in the above section, it would really be desirable if some international body would intervene, just to clarify the facts from the disputed facts. Anyway, from my own experience, --although I have no academic experience in Japan-- it has been difficult to acquire reliable sources in the Japanese language (the reasons for this is complex and not entirely out of convenience for the right-wing, atrocity-denying faction of the Japanese--which has always been minute). However, the task is not made a whole lot easier by searching in the English language either.

It would be ideal for the integrity of the article to focus primarily on the anti-Japanese sentiments and their "reasons," rather than anything claiming that the Japanese (government) had done this and that to "compensate," as such; I think moving that to a new article dealing with the post-war Japanese acts regarding wartime atrocities, would be most beneficial. (or even included in the history of modern Japan) I think the move to post a new article concerning the problematic Japanese textbooks has been entirely successful.

All in all, this is an article of acceptable neutrality. But it is in dire need of some definitive editorship. RuiInaba 14:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

+Would it also be informative to include here, the incarceration and stripping of property of ethnic Japanese' during the war in North America? RuiInaba 14:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think including info on anti-Japanese sentiment in the US during WWII would be great. I don't have much to contribute, though... LordAmeth 22:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have partly rewritten the section on anti-Japanese sentiment in China. I do not regard this as a perfect edit and people should feel free to rewrite it. I will be frank and admit that it does not make any appeal to objective sources. The main focus of changes is:

• To cut out some of the detailed enumerations of Japanese atrocities in WWII. These atrocities should be covered in articles specifically devoted to them; we don't need the full litany repeated here. (Rehashing them here is more an expression of anti-Japanese sentiment than an explanation of why such sentiment exists.) I also cut out some of the rather clumsy and obvious counter-arguments inserted by Japanese contributors.

• To remedy in a very small way the charge that the article is 'rather disparate, badly constructed and totally unquotable', I've inserted a few sentences on Japanese apologies, Yasukuni, textbooks, etc. The emphasis is on how Japan is perceived by the Chinese. I've also added a note on Japanese ODA and why it doesn't seem to have helped calm down anti-Japanese sentiment. This section is probably more impressionistic than it should be, although I've tried to be reasonably even-handed. If someone can do a better job (or create a totally new entry dealing with issues in detail), please feel free to go ahead!

• I've slightly rewritten the section on anti-Japanese demonstrations. I do not regard these riots as having 'broken out'. They were organized by certain elements; I personally received SMs calling for participation in the demonstrations. The government appears to have initially condoned the demonstations before eventually coming out and directing the populace not to hold any more. Writing a full account of these demonstrations requires a lot more access to and appraisal of information from many sources.

Bathrobe 10 August 2005

Boxers

Should something be said about the Chinese Boxer rebellion? They were anti-foreigners, including Japan. Weren't they? --Error 00:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Were the Boxers "invaders" or anything that can be compared to the Japanese imperialists? Though I understand that Boxers may fit into the context of the topics regarding "anti-[some particular people]", but we must keep in mind that western imperialists, including the Japanese, had already invaded China and took over large parts of it BEFORE the Boxer rebellion. Spartan

Politics

I have added a section on the political manipulation of anti-Japanese sentiment. I have done so because there is a need to address the common perception that everything that happens in China is orchestrated by that 'Commie dictatorship', which is surprisingly prevalent in some parts of the West. This section should be regarded as a draft. I have been unable to avoid being 'weaselly'. If you disagree with it or feel that what is said does not have sufficient basis, please edit accordingly.

Bathrobe 05:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about the Netherlands

The following statement is incorrect. I will remove it within one week unless somebody provides references for it.

"In Europe, some people in countries like United Kingdom and Netherlands express anti-Japanese sentiment as a result of the Europeans powers' loss of their Asian colonies, following World War II."

The Dutch generally did not blame the Japanese for their loss of colonies but they blamed the Indonesians "insurgents" like Sukarno who collaborated with the Japanese, in a similar vein as the Dutch traitors who colloborated with the Germans during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands.

There was/is anti-Japanese sentiment in the Netherlands for two different reasons

1. due to Japanese competition in the 1980s, very similar to the anti-Japanese sentiment in the USA e.g. competion of Philips electronics
2. treatment of the Dutch people in camps during WWII by the Japanese.

Andries 14:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Then we should change it and mention that Dutch anti-Japanese sentiments are for the reasons you stated above.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 21:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have references for the protests against the visit of the Japanes emporer in the Netherlands national quality newspaper by those elderly people in the NRC Handelsblad but unfortunately in Dutch language. [3] Some of these people complain that they were treated by the Japanese as if they were ......Indonesians! Andries 22:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Unknown Kanji.

I was curious what 續日本紀 reads as. It's certainly not Kojiki or Nihonshoki, and I cannot seem to find any English-language sites that refer to it, or even Japanese sites that give the yomikata. I think it would be nice, if we're going to include kanji in the article, to include the pronunciation as well. Besides, if it were, for example, Kojiki, it would be much more useful to simply write "Kojiki" than "Chonicle of Japan" or "Chronicle of Ancient Matters", don't you think? Thanks. LordAmeth 11:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It reads Shoku Nihongi, but this is written in its Kyūjitai form. In Shinjitai it would be 続日本紀.--Ryoske 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sinocentrism

As a Sinologist, I find the "sinocentric" theory to be an excellent example of bad scholarship. I admit it's probably a theory that some subscribe to, but it's worth adding in the reasons why it's such a bad mischaracterization of China during the medieval times. The current section almost makes it sound like this laughable concept actually has some truth to it, which is very far from reality. Xuanwu 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago I made some changes to the Sinocentrism section as rewritten by Xuanwu. The reason was that the section had turned into a detailed presentation and refutation of Sinocentrism, almost like a mini-debate. This is not the place to do this. All that is needed is to note that some Japanese regard Chinese anti-Japanese sentiment as a reflection of Sinocentrism.

There is actually a Wikipedia article on Sinocentrism, although it is still far from satisfactory. I moved the detailed refutations of Sinocentrism to the Sinocentrism article itself as they seem to belong there, not in the article on anti-Japanese sentiment. (Personally I don't feel that the points made are very effective because it is possible to be Sinocentric, or Eurocentric, or U.S.-centric, while giving credit to others for having attained your level, as it were).

I've also played down the point, made several times in the rewrite, that Sinocentrism as a concept is suspect. It needs to be made only once. The section detailing Japan's debt to China is also rather long and appears to have been inserted in an attempt to show that Sinocentric thought is not simply an unfounded and arrogant mindset (as the original section seemed to imply) but actually reflects the realities of historical cultural interchange in East Asia.

I made these changes without comment because I felt that they didn't detract from the point that was being made in the context of the article. Just in case someone has the wrong idea, I am not pushing POV here. On the contrary, the problem seems to be that one POV struggling against another results not in NPOV, but in a sprawling article that lurches from side to side.

Bathrobe 01:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky has suggested that two points are being made about alleged "Sinocentrism".

(1) The original point by Xuanwu was this:

"As a Sinologist, I find the "sinocentric" theory to be an excellent example of bad scholarship. I admit it's probably a theory that some subscribe to, but it's worth adding in the reasons why it's such a bad mischaracterization of China during the medieval times. The current section almost makes it sound like this laughable concept actually has some truth to it, which is very far from reality."

Not to put too fine a point on it, Xuanwu seems to be saying that Sinocentrism is a myth.

(2) The second point that appears to be in question is that "China's perceptions of Japan are colored by its Sinocentric world view".

Logically, if there is no such thing as a "Sinocentric world view", this second point is quite irrelevant. If, however, there is such a thing as a "Sinocentric world view", the question is whether it is relevant to Sino-Japanese relations.

From the point of view of the whole section, it might be better mentioning this later in the section, in refutation of the statement "Some Japanese now view anti-Japanese sentiment in China as a continuation of Chinese cultural chauvinism." That might help make the section easier to follow.

I am certainly not opposed to casting doubt on the theory of Sinocentrism. (In fact, I originally rewrote this section sometime last year to indicate that this was a view taken by many Japanese, which wasn't clear in the previous version).

What I do want to do is clean up articles where someone has written a section, and someone else who disagrees with it has come along and inserted a sentence right in the middle to say that "many people disagree with this" or to give reasons why the statement is not true. This kind of writing is often justified by appeal to NPOV. But when such insertions are made without regard to the flow or logic of the original section, you get a poorly-written incoherent section that reads like someone has inserted a nitpick after every second sentence.

In fact, if Sinocentrism really is baseless as an analysis of anti-Japanese sentiment, it would be better to simply rewrite the whole section on the alleged Sinocentrism factor. All that is needed is a couple of simple sentences noting that many Japanese feel that Chinese anti-Japanese sentiment is a continuation of Sinocentrism, but that many historians are sceptical of Sinocentrism as a theory. In fact, it may be better to get rid of Sinocentrism as a section and incorporate these points earlier in the article.

Bathrobe 03:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (mostly). Sorry it took me a while to reply. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on Sinocentrism seems to be causing persistent problems. The current article is about anti-Japanese sentiment. "Sinocentrism" on the part of the Chinese is cited by some (mainly Japanese) people as a reason for this. This article needs to note this perception, while at the same time stepping back to say that this is an "alleged" factor that some people believe in. There is no real need to go into detail as to whether Sinocentrism existed or not. That is a much more complex issue and there is no need to play it out on this page.

That is why I deleted the paragraph that was pasted in by User Bandaparte, which cited two quite flawed "counterarguments" from the Sinocentrism article itself. Adding these counterarguments and can only lead to further counterarguments, ad infinitim.

I feel that it would be more constructive to look at the Sinocentrism section of this article, which could bear some rewriting to change the present emphasis -- but not by adding "counterarguments" or adding further notes that "many consider this to have no real basis". When I say rewriting, I am referring to the various background notes on Sinocentrism in the section, which seem to have been inserted by someone to either justify charges of Sinocentrism or to show that there is an objective basis for Sinocentric thought -- it's not quite clear which. Some of that could be left out without compromising the section.

At any rate, I feel that toing and froing on Sinocentrism belongs in the Sinocentrism article itself, not here. In fact, if you read the article on Sinocentrism itself, you'll find some paragraphs on the Japanese body of thought that has grown up in opposition to perceived Sinocentrism which is much more interesting than the feeble counterarguments that were pasted in.

Bathrobe 01:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

April 9 Chinese protests photo

Does anyone know why the photo was taken down of the Chinese protests last spring? And can we find another suitable one? Those riots were probably the most major anti-Japanese event in the last few decades... LordAmeth 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, it was deleted because of it was unsourced. If we can find a sourced (and it should be fair use) we can put it back up. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google Image source brings up plenty. I am not 100% positive on the copyright status of photos from online news sites, but I would hope that, as they are photos of real-life events, and not works of creativity (i.e. art, literature) on the part of the photographer, they ought to be public domain, or at least fair use. I'll re-add one of them; the other is called Image:JapaneseFlagBurningChina-040305.jpg. Let me know what you think; or feel free to go Google searching and pick something else. LordAmeth 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think photographers still have the copyright for photographs for 50 years. Says so on the commons PD-China tag. Also, Epochtimes isn't the most objective or reliable source, so it'd be best to confirm that the photo can be found at another source in addition to that. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be a reliable source in this case. They're reliable enough to be trusted that the events depicted in their photos actually took place as depicted. Their text on the other hand, I agree, can be rather one-sided, and just generally poorly written.

That is true. However it still would be best if we can verify the picture with another source. I'll try. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember there's ANOTHER photo. Care to dig it out from the history? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible to recover pics that have been deleted. When I go through the history of this page, all I get is a broken Image link. LordAmeth 12:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures certainly can be restored, only problem is that the restored photo will still not have a source and would still have to be deleted. I don't think it is appropriate to restor uploaded media purely for the sake of identification... The image I'm talking about is Image:April 9 Beijing.jpg, try and see if you can find one with the same name. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Japan Bashing

There is no Wikipedia article on Japan Bashing. There isn't even a reference to it in this article.--Sir Edgar 04:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you're making reference to. Is there something specific you mean by the term "Japan bashing"? This entire article is about that, although admittedly on a more political-cultural level. It leaves out almost entirely references to casual jokes and the like, if that's the sort of thing you're referring to; LordAmeth 04:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How about an "Anti-Japanese sentiments online" subsection? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Japan-bashing" was a term coined by a paid Washington lobbyist for the Japanese government named Robert Angel. It was popular during the 80's when there was rising criticism of Japan's protectionist trade policies and takeover of American businesses and real estate.

While working at the Japan Economic Institute, Angel coined the term "Japan-bashing" as a way to stifle debate, even legitimate debate, on relations with Japan. Here is the text from: http://archives.cjr.org/year/92/6/trade.asp

Angel, who is now a political scientist at the University of South Carolina, wanted to counter the mounting public criticism of Japan's trade policies. "I looked around for a phrase to use to discredit Japan's critics, and I hoped to beable to discredit those most effective critics by lumping them together with the people who weren't informed and who as critics were an embarrassment to everybody else," Angel says.

Angel's goal was to discredit opposition to Japan's trade practices by insinuating that it was based on racism and xenophobia. His model was the pro-Israel lobby's use of the term anti-Semitism to stigmatize opponents of Israel's policies. he first tried out the term "anti-Japanism" in speeches and interviews but it didn't stick. Then, inspired by the British term "Paki-bashing," he tried "Japan bashing" -- and it worked. "The first people to pick up on it were the Japanese press," Angel says. "However, within a year the American press began to use the term." The term became a weapon in the public relations war being waged in Washington over trade policy and U.S.-Japanese economic relations.

Angel is now embarrassed by his triumph. "I view that modest public relations success with some shame and disappointment," he says. "Those people who use [the term] have the distinction of being my intellectual dupes."

I will go ahead and create an article. --Sir Edgar 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Foreign Aid to China

Japan sends the most foreign aid to China... which amounts to about $300,000? Whoever wrote that must realize that 300,000 dollars is NOTHING in terms of running a country. That section makes it sound like Japan is investing billions in the Chinese economy. Either the $300,000 figure is wrong, or the section must be rewritten to actually sound PLAUSIBLE. Why would Japan invest in China anyways? I don't believe that Japan gives China more money than all other countries combined. 71.105.75.207 05:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The figure is wrong. Japan sends hundreds of millions of dollars in ODA to China and Japanese businesses have invested tens of billions of dollars in the country.--Sir Edgar 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, now how big is the sum total of money comes from ODA and employment effect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.210.179.103 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

The article provides a detailed account of Japanese ODA to China, but failed to account for the amount of reparation China forgave Japan. Even though accurate estimation of Japanese damage to China has been given, one can look into comparable cases.

1) Germany has paid $61.8 billion by 1998 for approximately 6 million Jews murdured and property damage with no end in sight. [4]

2) The US government paid $20,000 for every Japanese American being sent to internment.

Chinese casualty during Japanese invasion is estimated at 35 million. All major Chinese cities were heavily bombarded and razed to the ground, Shanghai, Nanjing, Chengdu, Chongqi, Wuhan, Hongzhou, etc... So a rough estimate by German standard the reparation should be around $350 billion, by American standard the sum should be $700 billion.

Japanese ODA to China is around $30 billion, of which 90% is low interest loans China has to repay; only less than $3 billion is actual aid. Japanese ODA to China has been widely reported by Japanese media. There were complains about China not showing graditude to Japan. In 1998, Chinese PM, while on a visit to Japan, publicly thanked Japanese for ODA. ODA is also used by Japanese government to pressure China's policy directions. When was the last time Isaerel's foreign policy choice became a condition for Germany reparation? When was the last time a Japanese PM expressed graditude for China's forgiveness, ever? Redcloud822 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Not Verified tag

There aren't sources listed for anything in this article, so I added the tag. --Xyzzyplugh 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

This really needs to be rewritten in general - it needs editing. However, specifically the bit about certain critic's "perceptions" that japan is whitewashing their textbooks needs to be corrected as Japan (very arguably) IS whitewashing their textbooks. The introductory paragraph seems... victimized. That should be corrected.

Which section are you referring to? This one?

"Today, anti-Japanese sentiment is mostly attributed to Japanese military aggression in the early 20th century and the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army before and during World War II. While passions have settled somewhat since Japan's defeat, tempers continue to flare on occasion over the perception, on the part of some critics, that the Japanese government has made insufficient penance for the Pacific War, or has sought to whitewash the history of these events."

It seems fine to me.--Sir Edgar 00:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ANti-Japanese sentiment and racism

The article talks about racism in america towards Japanese immigrants. Is this racism or an "anti-Japanese sentiment" or are these two concepts interchangeable? Mrdthree 21:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Changs Book

The article states that Changs book was withdrawn because of contorversy here:

Books such as Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking generated enough controversy to be withdrawn from planned publication,

Is there a source on this? I heard that Chang got angry and pulled the deal when Japanese liberals (people in support of the Nanking Massacre) tried to fix some of the many errors in her book. It wasnt allowed and the book deal fell through.

invalid sources and anti-Japan education

We can not trust sources from South(and North) Korea. Why? You'll see if you read a histry book published in Korea. I've read a histry book used in Korean school.

Korean history books claim: 1. Korea has a 5000 yeas of history (longer than the history of China! wow). 2. Hangul has been used for centuries but, it's been banned by Japanese government. (Not true. The use of Hangul was banned by Korean King. Yangban strongly opposed the use of Hangul. Hanja had been officially used in Korea. Hangul became popular after 1910.) 3. Japan took away everything Korea had. (Not true. Japanese goverment built 5000 schools throughout Korea and taught Hangul. Japanese built rail roads, factories, hospitals, and a dam etc. Japan introduced modern medicine. The Korean population tripled in 36 years. etc etc) 4. Korea had been independent until 1910. (Not true. She gained independence after Treaty_of_Shimonoseki and built Independence_Gate) 5. Korea declared a war against Japan and Korean army faught against Japan and won the independence from Japan with some help of the atomic bombs. (Not true. There are no recod of any Korean army.. except a few soldiers who worked as an translator with US army) and list goes on and on...

Now, Korean people insists all the history taught in the US, China, Japan, and Russia are all wrong. [쿠키뉴스 2006-08-08 18:07] (Korean news article) http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=143&article_id=0000035259

And finally, the Korean goverment is now teaching students to hate Japanese. http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=294782&rel_no=1

http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1550

It's the education.

A question

Please pardon poor English.

I might not be able to consent.

I think a lot of sentences of the cause to be being written though this article is the one of the anti-Japanese sentiment. If it is the one for this article to expose a past evil doing of Japan, and to make the anti-Japanese sentiment recognized the right one, I apologize for an impolite remark. However, I would like you to teach why sentences that contain a lot of matters that seem to have created it have been approved otherwise by me.For instance, I want to know whether the description "Japan also killed the Queen of Korea at that time, Queen Min, and and raped and burned her body" has come out from material where.

-- "Japan also killed the Queen of Korea at that time, Queen Min, and and raped and burned her body" has come out from material where". Citations have been provided by someone. It is a well known event (not sure about the rape part though) witnessed by a number of Europeans. 66.171.76.176 00:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Okay, article currently says:

In Mein Kampf, Japanese are described as an inferior people.

Now, personally, I haven't read the whole book, but I searched an online version for all references to Japan, Japanese, and Hitler's favorite epiphet for East Asians, yellow Asiatic, and although the man certainly demeans East Asians frequently on a racial basis, I didn't find any direct quotes to the effect of "Japanese are an inferior people".. Perhaps we could find a more specific way to describe Hitler's sentiments, that's more easily directly-quotable? - Eric 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comfort women

Due to the comfort women incident(s) during WW2, as well of (invasions) and (massacres, eg nanjing) Anti-Japanese sentiment is common among the elderly in China (PRC), Korea (DPRK), Vietnam and Indonesia. (Brackets = mainly. Pro-US "states" eg Taiwan seem to have tolerace toward Japanese, however SOME portions of S. Korea and Taiwan are still Anti-Japanese.) ...will continue until... (admittion and compensation of comfort women) (...massacres) (...human testing in bioweapons tests in Manchuria). (sorry my english is bad, I need someone to complete my sentences, these are only basic ideas before adding them to main article). Middle age and youth in (mainland) China are Anti-Japanese due to the mass media and "passive propaganda" (eg in cartoons) encouraging hatred towaRDS THE Japanese.

Ideas OK? Benlisquare 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT - Source: Chinese TV. Anyone watch CCTV and BTV? Benlisquare 11:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

grammar

Please do not contribute if you are unable to write in english in an understandable way. especially the Korea-Japan relations make no sense in english. I understand wanting to make a contribution but you must understand that your translating is horrible. In addition the small nature of the points being made (like the pirate reference) is trivial for this broad of a topic.

Also, please don't just revert changes because you like it the way it was. especially when your version is unintelligible. This page is to help english readers understand the issue, not for people to soapbox.

This is the same reason i wouldn't go on a korean page and try to edit an article about the US there. Icactus 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nitto-souyuka

This is a book written in 1764. Korean's diplomat is writing. "The Japanese is a dog. I want to annihilate the Japanese on this beautiful island, and to do to Korean people's kingdom. " --Necmate 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not make sense in English. Please stop editing the English Wikipedia if you lack a proficiency in articulating an issue. Icactus 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare Amount of Japanese reparation forgiven by China to that of Japanese ODA

The article provides a detailed account of Japanese ODA to China, but failed to account for the amount of reparation China forgave Japan. Even though accurate estimation of Japanese damage to China has been given, one can look into comparable cases.

1) Germany has paid $61.8 billion by 1998 for approximately 6 million Jews murdured and property damage with no end in sight. [5]

2) The US government paid $20,000 for every Japanese American being sent to internment.

Chinese casualty during Japanese invasion is estimated at 35 million. All major Chinese cities were heavily bombarded and razed to the ground, Shanghai, Nanjing, Chengdu, Chongqi, Wuhan, Hongzhou, etc... So a rough estimate by German standard the reparation should be around $350 billion, by American standard the sum should be $700 billion.

Japanese ODA to China is around $30 billion, of which 90% is low interest loans China has to repay; only less than $3 billion is actual aid. Japanese ODA to China has been widely reported by Japanese media. There were complains about China not showing graditude to Japan. In 1998, Chinese PM, while on a visit to Japan, publicly thanked Japanese for ODA. ODA is also used by Japanese government to pressure China's policy directions. When was the last time Isaerel's foreign policy choice became a condition for Germany reparation? When was the last time a Japanese PM expressed graditude for China's forgiveness, ever? Redcloud822 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Insert them into the article please. Blueshirts 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do it once I get time. If you have time, go ahead by all means. Redcloud822 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More than 700,000 pieces Japanese chemical weapon in China today

When Japanese troops left China, more than 700,000 pieces of Japanese chemical weapons were buried in China, with site information distroyed by Japanese military. Dozens Chinese civilians still get injuried and killed every year to this day. In Aug, 2005 two children was killed by Japanese chemical weapons in China. Due to Japanese lack of funding, the process of removing chemical weapons has been long delay. Chinese government has long urged Japan to take responsibility in clear up its chemical weapons. Japan refused to compenstate injuried Chinese civilians. [6] Someone wonder why China doesn't like Japan. Redcloud822 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Necmate, I have cited official Japanese Government record of Chemical Weapons in China. You can check it out here; it's from Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs [7]. I demand you stop denying those facts and reverting my editing. If you disagree with my assertion, please show me your evidence. Redcloud822 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

clean up

The article was somewhat messy, so I cleaned it up a bit. No information was changed, or distorted. Odst 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

oops, I may have deleted some stuff on accident. sorry. Odst 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because, contrary to what you say, information has been changed and distorted.

For instance, mention of trade and economics as a reason for anti-Japanese sentiment has disappeared. That means that the section almost completely focuses on the atrocity/war aspect.

This statement I found quite problematical: "Many individuals in Asian countries, especially in China and Korea, Hold anti-Japanese sentiment mainly because of the Atrocities committed by Japan since medieval times. [2][3][4]"

If you check the three sources given, you will find that most Asian countries have very positive views of Japan. The exceptions (not "especially") are China and South Korea. There is, needless to say, no support given to the statement that people hold anti-Japanese sentiment "mainly because of the Atrocities committed by Japan since medieval times".

Before you try pressing the Undo button again (and I don't particularly like using the Undo button except in the case of vandals), I suggest that you sit down and do a proper job of rewriting. LDHan was right in reverting because you didn't just "clean it up a bit". You put a definite spin, your own spin, on the entire section.

Bathrobe

Yes, contrary to Odst's claim that "No information was changed or distorted." actually Odst's unexplained edits did removed content, two paragraphs were completely removed without any explanation. LDHan 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

!

The Interaction between the governments are actually quite positive; it is just that "many individuals" hold a grudge against Japanese people.

also regarding the business techniques, I thought that It would be more appropriate to move the paragraph from the overview to the post WW2 section, as it is only a minor aspect of Japanophobia. Odst 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Odst 23:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)== !! ==

How I see it, The overview is still screwed up. An unfamiliar reader would get very confused. Actually, my friend read it, and he was very, very confused... Odst 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Odst, I agree that the section is badly written. That is why I made a very tentative attempt to clean it up a bit, although nothing as ambitious as you have attempted.

I don't oppose people trying to clean it up. It's just that your efforts were way too disruptive, losing information, putting in unsupported assertions, and putting a distinct slant on the section.

If you feel that you can make a fair-handed attempt at rewriting it, please go ahead. But try to be a bit more conservative and careful in your editing. The current section reflects lots of funny little biases on the part of previous editors, which is one reason it's such a mess, but if you are going to attempt a rewrite of such a sensitive topic, you have to be extra-careful to avoid any bias.

As for the question of trade and economics, it's your interpretation that this is 'minor'. In places like the US, economic issues have been a point of friction and caused a lot of anti-Japanese feeling in the 1980s. You can't just edit this out because you think it's "not important". Have you heard of Vincent Chin?

With regard to anti-Japanese sentiment in Asia, "individuals" is a weaselly way of describing things. There are always "individuals" anywhere who have certain points of view. The question is whether these "individuals" constitute a significant trend. If you read the three sources cited in the article concerning public attitudes to Japan, you'll notice that they all speak of generally favourable attitudes towards the Japanese. That doesn't mean 100%, but it means that a majority of people are well-disposed. You and I are well aware that quite a few people in Southeast Asia still nurture ill feelings towards Japan over the war, but the articles that are cited don't give support the notion which was implied in your edit that Asians, "especially Chinese and South Koreans", harbour anti-Japanese feelings. The problem here is one of emphasis. The articles cited don't lend support to a general Asian antipathy to the Japanese. What they point out is continuing strong antipathy among the Chinese and South Koreans, which is contrary to the trend in the rest of Asia. (If you have other sources that say otherwise, fine, but please cite them).

You should also refer to the article itself in writing the Overview. The Overview is basically a summary of the article and shouldn't be in conflict with the body of the article. For example, the article itself says: "Anti-Japanese attitudes in the Korean Peninsula can be traced far back to the Japanese pirates raids and the Japanese invasion of 1592, but are largely a product of the period of Japanese rule in Korea from 1910-1945". The body of the article says these attitudes are "largely a product of the period of Japanese rule". Why does your Overview state that anti-Japanese sentiment is "mainly because of the Atrocities committed by Japan since medieval times"?

Bathrobe 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There were numerous atrocities committed during the 1592 raids and during the japanese rule of korea. Also, the statement in the overview was about the atrocities committed in China, too... But I do admit that I totally screwed up...

I think you are missing the point. The article is about anti-Japanese sentiment, not Japanese atrocities. Atrocities have happened in the past, in many places at the hands of many people, but often they are largely forgotten over time. Sure, anyone can trot out a litany of evils dating right back the year dot, but that doesn't prove that anti-Japanese sentiment was strong all along. The question is, does strong anti-Japanese sentiment date back to 1592, or does it mostly date from the Japanese occupation?

I'm not really in a position to judge, but focusing on Japanese atrocities going right back to 1592 sounds more like a reason for hating the Japanese than it does a description of the causes of anti-Japanese sentiment. It seems to be a fairly common problem on this page that people want to tell everyone why they hate the Japanese so much rather than describe the phenomenon of anti-Japanese sentiment.

Bathrobe 00:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you don't know how much people are bitter about them. many of the people primarily from the older generations are quite Anti-Japanese.

I do know they're bitter about them! But you're writing an encyclopaedic article, not indulging in bitterness! That means you have to give a cool, balanced, critical view. Writing the article to make the Japanese seem worse than they are, or better than they are, is simply not right if you're serious about being a contributor.

Bathrobe 02:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find the place where I tripped. bear with me. Odst 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

and yes, I do know Vincent Chin. there was an hour long lecture about him at the museum of tolerance.

Anti-Japanese sentiment in inter-war Germany

The info that many Germans resented the Japanese take-over of German colonies is, if it can be confirmed, certainly interesting info, but I wonder how notable this is. Also the comparison with Jews seems a bit out of place. Antisemitism was a very notable factor of the rightist movements in the Weimar republic (just see the murders of Erzberger or Rathenau, for example), and the consequences after 1933 are too well-known to need any discussion here. Are there any examples of anti-Japanese literature being published, or any notable anti-Japanese incidents in post-WWI Germany? I guess Hitler was not entirely convinced that Japanese were worth as much as Aryans, and so were a number of others. But I wonder how this is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this particular article. Yaan (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Waein, Waenom

Regarding the Korean derogatory terms, I believe that "Waein" should be replaced with "Waenom", which is what this article was like 6 months ago. The difference between "in" and "nom" is that "nom" can be used derogatively. "ilbon-in", "meiguk-in", "junguk-in", "hanguk-in" can be all seen as polite ways to say Japanese, American, Chinese and Korean respectively. "Gin" is also used with some respect. On the other hand, "ilbonnom", "yangnom" are seen as more rude. You can say "Shibbal nom, Ilbonnom" (Fuck you, Ilbonnom), but not "Shibbal nom, Ilbon-in" (Fuck you, Ilbon-in). Benlisquare (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Shibal nom, Ilbon-in" actually means "you are shibal nom, ilbon-in"... You could say this in any other context. It's not a Japan-specific phrase.

Also I am not sure if the slangs used by older generations deserve to be listed as some sort of a specifically anti-japanese phenomenon. My grandfather refers to Americans as "migooknom," but he doesn't think they are inferior or anything like that. It's just a way to refer to foreigners for old people, reminiscent of the derogatory language used to refer to barbarians in the old days. (Chunbum Park (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

etymology of "gook"

Why has the etymology of "gook" been removed? I thought it was a rather good explanation of where it may have come from (the guo/guk/quoc origin). Benlisquare (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it came from the Korean war because the Koreans at that time were yelling "gook".99.238.165.168 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Korean word for America is "Miguk" which is definitely where it came from.... --206.57.22.197 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But see this requote of The Conquest of Haiti by Herbert J. Seligman, July 10, 1920, which contains the following: "The Haitians in whose service United States marines are presumably restoring peace and order in Haiti are nicknamed "Gooks" and have been treated with every variety of contempt, insult, and brutality." Also see this and this. (kuliko na to hangukmal ul chokum mal halsu iseyo). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See also this. Oda Mari (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

Here is a direct quote from the KCNA:

If Japan finally launches re-invasion despite the repeated warnings from the DPRK, it will give vent to the grudge against Japan pent up for more than a century and send the whole of Japan, a country of islands, into the bottom of the sea. This is the unanimous will and tough stand of the servicepersons and people of the DPRK to struggle against Japan. Japan should learn the truth that this extraordinary readiness and will are guaranteed by full capability. The Japanese reactionaries would be well advised to halt such rash acts.

Source: [8]

As you can see, Japanese are referred to as "reactionaries". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

According to the North Korean government, everybody who does not genuflect before Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il is a "reactionary"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I see your point. But doesn't the "Japan will sink into the ocean" and "Japan is advised not to..." make you any bit concerned? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory terms - In Chinese

In China, where Anti-Japanese (since WW2) and Anti-Korean (since the 2008 Olympic Torch Relay) sentiment is high, there are various terms used, most being ethnic slurs. They are common in street talk and internet forums. There should be more than the small few given in the article, so perhaps people should look around for them. New terms come around every now and then. For example, the terms 高丽棒子 (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%AB%98%E9%BA%97%E6%A3%92%E5%AD%90) (高丽/高麗 refers to ancient Korea, sometimes 韓棒子 is also used) and 死棒子 are anti-Korean terms common in China, yet they only surfaced at the beginning of 2008; there are no records of the words used prior (i.e. recent slang). "二鬼子" refers to hanjian and Koreans in the Imperial Japanese Army (back in WW2), and is used against all Koreans today. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what relevance anti-Korean terminology used in China has to this article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that things are always changing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Images from Chinese Wiki

I think these images from the Chinese Wiki article should be added. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-jp.jpg http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shanghai1931post1.jpg -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Whaling

All forms of racism and descrimination based on country or ethnicity are deplorable and horrid, still I fail to see how anti-whaling sentiments are to be confused with anti-Japanese sentiments. I think the mistake here is to confuse the two. Not only are the articles and underlying justification for use misleading, but the only time the issues seem to be linked is in somewhat dubious debates on the internet, in an attempt to ascociate whaling with nationalistic pride to divert attention or gain support in opposition to the anti-whalers. In fact the inclusion in this article of the anti-whaling debate only seems to further support this position. Labeling Austaralia and New Zealand as "Hardline anti-whaling nations" lacks proof an is unsuitable for a encyclopedic article. The actions of Greenpeace were not supported by the government. The use of the word "barbaric" was used only in relation to whaling and in no way applicable to the Japanese government or people. Australia has incredibly strict codes of standards and practices in relation to TV content and draconian anti racial vilification laws, so believe me when I say any anti-Japanese sentiment expressed would have seen the interview cancelled or Garrett sacked. To make my position clear I don't think this section has any merit for inclusion, actually fuels devisiveness and does not have any supporting evidence. The whaling issue had relatively more press coverage in Australia than Japan, though for different reasons (I was in both places at the time). Outside of the issue, Japan is a great place and I thoroughly recomend visiting it (I also have no position on Japanese whaling). I suggest though being mindful of people with vested interest, turning the debate into something its not, as evidenced by a slew of anti-Australian videos "titled racist Australia" released by a Jpanese blogger in response to the whaling situation and the predictable responses. Both countries have a strong co-operative recent history, with little or nothing to the contrary and wikipedia is no place to incite some kind of racial battle or debate whilst the original subject (anti-whaling) has little to do with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.157.160 (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good argument. Not perfect, but I'm not inclined to write out the weak counterarguments that occur to me. I'm convinced. Unschool (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Boycott images

It seems seriously inappropriate to have images related to the anti-made-in-Japan-goods campaign in the US in the late 1930s next to talk of racism and xenophobia. The boycott of Japanese goods was an attempt to support China's efforts to repel an aggressive Japanese conquest, not an outpouring of xenophobia. Actually, the more I read this article, the dumber it gets - "Anti-Japanese racism in California had become increasingly xenophobic," what does that even mean? Is there non-xenophobic racism? <eleland/talkedits> 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Disney's cartoons

Disney made several anti-Japanese cartoons during the war, as I recall. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everything needs a Wiki entry.69.204.225.103 (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Please take a look at the section "Korea".

>>Anti-Japanese attitudes in the Korean Peninsula can be traced as far back as the Japanese denial of their origin/roots,

This is an original research. No proof at all. The Japanese denial of their origin? Does that mean the Japanese originated in Korea? There's no proof for it. "The Japanese denial of their origin" does not make sense because they never denied such a thing.

>>Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history.

Who are the "most histrians"? It is true that Japan learned much from Korea but it does not mean Japan originated from Korea.

>>Emperor Kammu's grandfather was Korean but this is not mentioned often in Japan nor is it studied indept to find their Korean lineage, instead Imperial tombs are blocked from archeological studies by foreign archeologists

Most Japanese do not know much about the Imperial family and it is natural that the Emperor's grandfather was Korean because it is not an important issue. Moreover, the information about Emperor Kammu's ancestory is only mentioned in Shoku Nihongi and the reliability of it is arguable. Besides, even if Emperor Kammu's grandfather was Korean, it does not mean that the Imperial family originated in Korea. It only means the Imperial family has connection to Korea.

Objectiveye claims as if Japanese people denied this information but they do not. Shoku Nihongi says no details and we do not have other sources support this information. The Japanese never denied the information that the mother of Emperor Kammu was of Korean origin (Actually, Soku Nihongi does not mention the grandfather of the emperor. It says that his mother was of Korean origin). People only says it is arguable. They don't say it is either true or false.

Furthermore, what does this have to do with this article? It seems to me that the writer just want to make believe that Korea was the origin of Japan, which is not true.

>>and historiacal errors from the early 1900s are not updated.

Information from DPRK cannot be trusted because it is strongly biased. I think every one of you knows it.

>>The National geographics wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea"

What does this have to do with this article?

>>Whenever the Japanese downplay these facts, it causes tension and mistrust in Korea.

Pure original research. You say "facts", but they are not the fact, but only "claims".

>>Many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea, "Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean “Idu” system of writing" the swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings"

It is true that many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea. So, what does that have to do with this article?

>>The denial of these facts in history was the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

Denial? Who denied what? Pure original research.

>>Furthermore the subsequent revisionism in history textbooks used in Japan's educational system after WWII have caused conflict. Today, issues of Japanese history textbook controversies, Japanese policy regarding WWII, and geographic disputes between the two countries perpetuate this sentiment, and these issues often incur huge disputes between Japanese and Korean internet users. Korea, together with China, may be considered as among the most intensely anti-Japanese societies in the world.

Well, this is true. Properly cited.

As you can see, this edit is made up of original research only. It may SEEM to have information sources, but some of them are not reliable (DPRK) and the others do not have anything to do with the article.

Therefore, I strongly believe that my revision here has a good reason to be done. --Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with article

Many unsourced claims. This article is also leaning heavily towards portraying non-Japanese people as extremely racist. "The U.S. conviction that the Japanese were subhuman or animals" A statement like this should flat out not exist. You cannot state as fact that the U.S.(the entire population? the country itself?) held a conviction that the Japanese were subhuman or animals. Many were just ordinary racists and believed the Japanese were people who were deceptive and evil, but not that they were animals. Other problems, some OR, etc. You should just be able to look at article and tell the many problems, so I'm just going to start cleaning up.AerobicFox (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Pacific theatre of fighting in WW2, due to certain unfortunate tendencies of the Japanese military (such as mistreating prisoners, and refusing to surrender even in a completely militarily hopeless situation), there grew to be a widespread conviction among the U.S. military in the Pacific that the Japanese "did not value human life" or "set no value on human life", and this led to a partial breakdown of the normal "courtesies of war" or military protocols in many areas, and led many soldiers to view the Japanese more as vermin to be exterminated than as a noble chivalrous opponent to be defeated -- often exacerbating whatever previous racist views they may have held. AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am alright with a description like that. I just don't want to be stating due to a lack of specific words that the entire American populace viewed the Japanese as subhuman.AerobicFox (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"short Japan"?

The word "小" in Chinese generally means "small, little, lesser". I believe, however, The term "小日本" in this context should be translated as "puny Japan(ese)". "little"/"short" makes little sense - this term is applied to both Japanese people and the nation of Japan itself. And as a definitive derogatory term, "puny" sounds just about right. I don't know if there's an established translation(I believe not), but since it is purely personal opinion, I thought I should ask here. Blodance the Seeker 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I also made changes to the "Yellow Army" stuff. for the association of yellow with pornography in modern Chinese, see Yellow#Etymology and definitions. (A side note, in old Chinese, the color of yellow is associated with the Emperor, or Imperial power.) Blodance the Seeker —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Go right ahead and make such changes.AerobicFox (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)