 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
siredgar
|
 |
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
The U.S. does not "rule" Japan. A decision to amend the constitution to change the nature of Japanese military forces is up to Japanese legislators, not the U.S. government. However, I believe that these forces are under joint U.S.-Japanese command requiring approval by both sides for any sigificant military moves, just like for South Korea. Correct me, if I'm wrong.
Nevertheless, the U.S. does have strong influence on the military policies of countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and even Britain. Generally, these are made through military arrangements such as joint command agreements or treaties like ANZUS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
satyajedi
|
|
"We had to look aside as the imperial family fell blameless because the Japanese people held the emperor as somewhat of a deity and incapable of wrongdoing"
The United States has done many terrible things in our time, but the pardoning of anyone in the Japanese military with royal connections is one of the worst things we did in the 20th century. Idle complaining, and perhaps only tangentally related, but when you hear about Nanking and realize that the architects get let off when we could have prosecuted them, it pisses me off. It's ramifications can still be seen in a Japanese society that refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese in World War II, with history books that merely repeat the Japanese war propaganda that Japan was liberating Korea, China and Southeast asia from European colonization.
By the way, I suspect that Koizumi will not be able to amend/remove the pacifist clause in the Japanese constitution. Many Japanese people support this clause, both inside and outside the government, and it appeals to a post-WWII sense that the Japanese have "outgrown" militarism (as opposed to barbaric American gajin).
Still, there should be little doubt that even without a military, Japan is amoung the most powerful nations in the world. In these days of interconnected economies, the importance of military power is so severely diminished that I don't think Japan loses anything, power-wise, by not having an army.
-Satya
|
|
| |
|
|
|
satyajedi
|
|
By the way, to all you anti-American Europeans, I have to say...
Man, what a relief to hear you guys diss America! To be an American right now is to be constantly bombarded with America uber alles images from every media outlet. I'd almost forgotten there were people in the world -- that is, other than psychotic Islamic terrorists -- who were willing to kick our arrogant, self-centered, militaristic, Kyoto-defying, ABM-treaty-trashing ass.
I gotta renew my subscription to the Guardian...
-Satya
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I have to ask the following question:
"Isn't it a bit self-righteous and hypocritical for Europeans to admonish U.S. foreign policy for destructive behavior, especially when it is the Europeans who have started so many wars, colonized and enslaved so many peoples, and destroyed much of Earth's ecosystem?"
After a series of endless regional warfare, the Europeans had developed advanced weaponry and ocean-faring vessels. They took this knowledge to begin colonizing and enslaving the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The ramifications of this are still felt throughout the world today, including in the U.S.
Some may argue that this is inevitable. Human nature they say. Man shall always seek power.
Well, compare this to the Chinese. They developed gunpowder and ocean-faring junks hundreds of years before the Europeans took full advantage of these technologies. Expeditions by Cheng Ho led to voyages to Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, and even the coasts of East Africa.
So, did they go ahead and then take over the inhabitants? No, they traded with them. Even with the ones that were considered relatively "primitive" to their civilization.
The European superiority complex led to many tragedies in human civilization, not to mention two World Wars. Many European states are only now moving towards better cooperation, more aid for developing countries, and environmental protection. This is after hundreds of years of devastating wars, the colonization/enslavement of other peoples, and environmental degradation.
Look at your own history before criticizing others.
The U.S. is still a "young" country. Give it a break!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
Please don't count this an anti-american issue (it's not meant to be one), but:
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
After a series of endless regional warfare, the Europeans had developed advanced weaponry and ocean-faring vessels. They took this knowledge to begin colonizing and enslaving the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The ramifications of this are still felt throughout the world today, including in the U.S. |
Sitting on the soil the European conquerors gained bloodily from the native American population and saying "That was evil!" sounds funny. If it would not have happened, most of you (assumed they were really born) would still be - Europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
Well, compare this to the Chinese. They developed gunpowder and ocean-faring junks hundreds of years before the Europeans took full advantage of these technologies. Expeditions by Cheng Ho led to voyages to Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, and even the coasts of East Africa. |
Right, the Chinese did not attack. They were safe and happy behind their Great Wall. But the Mongols did. And the Turks too. And a big part of Europe was occupied for centuries. Half of the population of former Yugoslavia are still Moslems. So don't tell stories of the peaceful Asians and the evil Europeans. All civilizations (including European, Asian, African and yes - American) have light and dark spots in their history.
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
The U.S. is still a "young" country. Give it a break! |
Agreed, though with a smile  . Read the thread "Are the Americans old enough..." and see how "old" the American civ is in the opinion of so many  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
muppet
|
|
Igloo
Dec 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jasev
Nice question. So you say:
1) The Europeans commited atrocities.
2) So, the Americans are allowed to commit atrocities.
3) The Americans can criticize the Europeans for their past atrocities.
4) But the Europeans can't criticize the Americans for their current Atrocities.
Who is hypocritical here? We know our history, and we can regret it. But we weren't born when it happened and we can't avoid it. Meanwhile, Americans are responsible of the current activities of their government because they ellected it. They can avoid it. |
Isn't that kind of like... twisting what was actually said?
As to current activities...
I realize that, in North America, our news reports are uhm... tainted -- I try not to call reporters, liars (it's a job). However, I am curious as to what current activities America engages in that are so bad?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
I have to ask the following question:
"Isn't it a bit self-righteous and hypocritical for Europeans to admonish U.S. foreign policy for destructive behavior, especially when it is the Europeans who have started so many wars, colonized and enslaved so many peoples, and destroyed much of Earth's ecosystem?"
|
I had people of my family killed by the nazis, but I will never held German people of today responsible for it.
It is their grand-parents who put Hitler to power, not them.
But, OTOH, if they say:"What our grand-parents did was no mistake, what they did was right", then, I think that they share responsability.
The same way, I will never accuse an American of today for the massacre of the American Natives of yesterday, except if he states that it was 'the right thing to do' (we all know the excuse of "they didn't do anything usefull of their land, so we took it". With this mentality, I guess there is no backyard in the US with simply grass. "Cultivate your garden, or I have the right to take it" !?! ).
So yes, even as European, I will 'admonish' American (or whoever) for what they do, not for what their ancestors did.
We learned the hard way that humilating an ennemy was to feed the extremist part of it.
Our grand parents humiliated the Germans with the treaty of Versailles, and the consequences were Hitler and nazism.
Our parents, learned from the bad experience of out grand-parents and although Hitler was real evil (much more than Saddam Hussein), they tried not to humiliate Germany.
Yes, (as an example) today we say: what US make Iraqi (or Israel in Gaza), is the same mistake as our grand-parents. They humiliates Iraqi. We all know the consequences of humiliation: extremism. It will not be nazism, but it will be integrism (each one its extremism).
Notice that I am *not* saying that Saddam (or the hesbola(?)) are nice guys, no, what I say is that your policy *helps* those evil people.
What bugs us, as european, is that the same way nazism did not only affect Europe, the extremism you are feeding today, will not only affects you, but the whole world.
The same way I say: our grand parents made a mistake, the same way I say: you are making a mistake.
What I say here is: we (europeans) made mistakes, but we learned. You, you seem to forget: your grand-parents were wise enough not to humiliate Germany or Japan, and you lost this wisdom in middle-east.
BTW1: I know some US-haters who say: "No, the US (same for Israel) are not THAT stupid, they perfectly know what they are doing. They are doing this purposely, nobody can be *that* innocent. They *want* extremism. They do NOT want any rich country (arabic, muslim) in this region, so they feed extremism by all possible means. Humiliation is the best, because on one hand you feed the problem and as soon as humiliated people react, you may say: see, I was right, they *are* evil".
BTW2: there are other points (nationalism, morality/hypocrisy, religion,...) on which you really makes me think to our grand-parents (1900-1950). Technologically you are ahead of us, but by values/morality, you are at the level of our grand parents and it bugs me when your so-called values comes back to Europe, I have the feeling that history is going backward.
Our grand parents values brought the world to great misfortune, what will *you*, with same values, but better technology bring to the world?
Please, learn from the past, even the past of other countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
I don't wish to start a bean counting, that would be wrong. As a German I know, that it's a short way from "Hooray"-patriotism through nationalism to fascism, I (as well as most other Germans today) know what my ancestors have done and don't expect anybody to love me. Just take me as I am.
What I don't like in America's current policy is, that they try to play "Civilization" with the real World. How do most of us play? The World is our playground, all resources belong to us no matter where they are located, we have no friends but only vassals, we use our financial superiority to finally ruin the poor, our military is omnipresent, global warming doesn't matter for the sake of our production, and if we bomb cities back to stone age it's their own fault, because they started to attack our tank army with a knight.
Unfortunately, the present European policy is not a bit better. I think our children will suffer badly for the mistakes our parents and we are responsible for, no matter if they live in America or Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
satyajedi
|
|
Well said Dry.
(for the record, it is Hizb'allah, and no they are not nice guys).
I would even go so far as to say that the dismantling of the Palestinian authority can only be because Sharon knows that a Palestinian leadership vacuum will be filled by Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and once that happens it will give him the justification to remove the entire Palestinian population. I seriously doubt he's stupid enough to dismantle the PLO without knowing that Jihad will be the result.
-Satya
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Manstein3
|
|
Giovanni August:
Charle Magne was not a French. I could argue he belonged to a German tribe, the Franken, who conquered large parts of Roman Gallia and became the new upper class, but the truth is that his Franconian Empire was neither French nor German. The split between France and Germany was after his death. And France was never called Roman Empire like Germany, but was a kingdom (which was a huge advantage in forming a united nation, which Germany did not acchieve BECAUSE of the supernational role of its Kaiser)
The USA is the leading power. you can verify this
-on the people who get most nobel prizes (before the first World War: Germans, between the Wars: British, now: US-Americans or people working there)
- because of the fact that we write in English (In 1900 a - at least - scientific discussion would have been in German, in 1800 it would have been in French. As time goes by...)
-on the supremacy of the Hollywood-entertainment-industry. This is a strategic device unknown to former ages. Maybe the Roman culture had the same strategic effects to its neighbours: to influence and and adapt them ...
-on the fact that most big companys in the world are part of the Dow Jones. The US-economy and the high-tech-industry even more is predominant in an astounding way...
-on the fact that only military interventing power is the USA. The others don't have the prestige or the guts, or both. And they dont have the money to spend...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
Well, compare this to the Chinese. They developed gunpowder and ocean-faring junks hundreds of years before the Europeans took full advantage of these technologies. Expeditions by Cheng Ho led to voyages to Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, and even the coasts of East Africa.
So, did they go ahead and then take over the inhabitants? No, they traded with them. Even with the ones that were considered relatively "primitive" to their civilization.
|
I believe my Vietnamese neighbours have a rather differing, more sanguine notion of a 'peaceful' China.
For instance: in 1410, after leading five large expeditions in person, the Emperor Yung-le won a victory on the River Onon to the north east of Ulan Bator over the Mongols. Manchuria was occupied up to the mouth of the Amur.
5000 kilometres to the south, a Chinese army numbering some 200, 000 men intervened in 1406 in Dai Viet, in northern Viet Nam, putting an end to the kingdom of the Tran. Military occupation and de facto annexation of the Red River basin followed- leading to the establishment of the new Vietnamese dynasty of the Le, under the legendary Le Loi, in 1427.
Cheng Ho intervened in an affair of the succession to the throne in the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit, and in Palembang in a conflict between the local government and the Chinese colony.
In Calicut, Cochin and Sri Lanka he erected stelae proclaiming that these kingdoms were vassals of the Ming Empire.
Cheng Ho opposed the claims of the Majapahit to Malacca- erecting another stelae there. He also inflicted a defeat on the royal army in Sri Lanka.
1413-1415, Chinese troops under Cheng Ho intervened in the internal affairs of the Sultanate of Samudra-Pasai in north-western Sumatra.
The voyages of Cheng Ho were not simply exploration and mercantilism- they were designed to impress upon lesser kingdoms the power and prestige of the Ming, and in doing so, to extract trading rights and tribute. The use of a Muslim commander being especially judicious, given the nature of the trade routes between China and South East Asia and the east of Africa and Arabia.
You might call it junk diplomacy, as opposed to gunboat diplomacy...
There were further Ming offensives in Mongolia, and under the Manchu, Sinkiang/Chinese Turkestan, the Ili valley, the oases of the Tarim Basin, and Sino-Manchu occupation of Tibet, in 1751.
Indeed, the Ch'ing Empire reached its greatest extent in 1759- controlling territories covering approx. 13 000 000 sq. km. , including Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, other areas since occupied by Russia, and exacted tribute with/without threats, from Nepal, Burma, Siam, Vietnam, Ryukyu, Korea, the Philippines and Bhutan.
Not quite so stay at home as people might think....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Molly,
You always seem to be able to dig up these obscure facts that are quite fascinating. I applaud you for standing up for the underdogs, as usual.
Anyhow, if you look back at my previous postings, you will see that I never described the Chinese during the 15th century as "peaceful". Instead, my point focused on the fact that the Chinese did not go out and enslave and colonize other peoples considered "inferior" in cultural advancement.
The Chinese did wage many wars against the Vietnamese, but I believe this was primarily because they refused to pay tribute to the emperor. Counter to popular opinion, loyal vassal states like Korea were largely left alone and were not ruled by or were "colonies" of China. In fact, they often received more back than what they gave in tributes to the emperor.
Anyhow, the Chinese wanted to secure their borders with friendly states and often used force to preserve its interests in the immediate areas. They were not "peaceful", but they did not colonize other peoples in the same way Europeans later did.
Perhaps the Chinese were not that aggressive overseas because they did not possess the capability. I do not believe this is true, however, because Cheng Ho often had about 30,000 men travel with him on some of the largest wooden boats constructed in human history. They definitely had the capability to colonize other peoples.
In at least one of the cases of Chinese aggression abroad you brought up, namely the Sri Lankan intervention, I know it was recorded that the local chief was "acting aggressively" and so they were forced to attack. The primary mission of these voyages was repeatedly trade and exploration time after time.
The point is is that the Chinese had developed the technologies to go overseas and use force to subjugate others, but they did not.
Edgar
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
Molly,
You always seem to be able to dig up these obscure facts that are quite fascinating. I applaud you for standing up for the underdogs, as usual.
Anyhow, if you look back at my previous postings, you will see that I never described the Chinese during the 15th century as "peaceful". Instead, my point focused on the fact that the Chinese did not go out and enslave and colonize other peoples considered "inferior" in cultural advancement.
The Chinese did wage many wars against the Vietnamese, but I believe this was primarily because they refused to pay tribute to the emperor. |
Let me assure you- from a Vietnamese point of view, Vietnamese history is not obscure- the Le dynasty and Le Loi are still reverenced in modern day Vietnamese history. So the Chinese did not enslave other people- um, so if these 'vassal' states (and how did they get to be vassal states?) decide they want to keep their revenues or goods for themselves, what did the Chinese do? Use harsh words and embargo the sale of ink?
If the Chinese considered these states as equals and not inferiors, why would they demand tribute? And how could they enforce it? When the Ch'ing Empire reaches its greatest extent in 1759, did it do so through peaceful osmosis or cooption, or as a result, as I have pointed out, of aggressive militaristic occupation and subjugation?
If, as you say, the Sri Lankans were 'acting aggressively' (frankly, erecting stelae proclaiming sovereign states to be vassals of a distant empire is aggressive in my book- consider the Spaniards or the English in the Americas) is it such a surprise that Cheng Ho gets an unpleasant welcome?
Here's a relatively unbiased link, which talks about the new Ming Dynasty wishing to assert its authority and influence, and wishing to civilize other nations in the way of Confucian living:
http://members.tripod.com/khleo/chengho.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Molly,
Again, perhaps you should read what I post more carefully. I did not say that the Chinese considered other peoples "equal and not inferiors". In fact, I imply that they did not look upon most of the peoples of Southeast Asia and Africa as very developed at all.
According to the Chinese, the only civilized peoples in Asia were the Koreans and the Vietnamese. Even the Japanese at the time were often called barbaric "dwarf pirates". The difference between the Koreans and the Vietnamese is that the Koreans maintained relatively peaceful relations with their larger, more powerful neighbor for a long time, while the Vietnamese did not.
There were many wars between the Chinese and the Vietnamese that still resonates in animosity today. However, Chinese relations with the Koreans were close and friendly. In fact, Chinese scholars often described Korea as the "scholar-nation" and held high regard for its innovations in science, philosophy, and religion. Likewise, the Koreans maintained deep respect and admiration for the Chinese. They even erected a large monument to memorialize the "tragic" end of the great Ming Dynasty.
Yes, the Chinese were asserting their authority in the region and in some cases, elsewhere, as you've pointed out. But my point remains the same: they did not enslave or colonize peoples they considered "inferior" to the extent the Europeans did.
Edgar
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
'By the way, I brought up the example of the Chinese during the 15th century, not to say that Asians are "peaceful" and Europeans are "evil", but to demonstrate that not all civilizations need to resort to violence in interactions with other peoples just because they are more advanced. '
Your words are they not, Edgar?
Okay let's see....1368, foundation of Ming Dynasty. 1387, China reunified. 1388, Chinese expansion begins, at the Battle of Buinor in north-eastern Mongolia, and, ah, the 'persuasion' of the Korean I dynasty, founded in 1392, to 'adhere' to Chinese rule/influence.
Yung-le's reign, 1403-1424 sees more expansion, at the expense of non-Chinese: the Oirats in the north west, the Tatars in the north east. So, we have the battle of Onon River, 1410, in Mongolia, and the invasion of Dai Viet in Viet Nam, in 1406.
The policy of conquest, and the pursuit of trade went hand in hand. What stopped further Ming expansion in the north were defeats inflicted by Mongol/steppe forces.
The land campaigns took place at the same time as Cheng Ho's voyages of trade and 'persuasion', and had much the same purpose- economic domination and political subjugation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
'By the way, I brought up the example of the Chinese during the 15th century, not to say that Asians are "peaceful" and Europeans are "evil", but to demonstrate that not all civilizations need to resort to violence in interactions with other peoples just because they are more advanced. '
Your words are they not, Edgar?
Okay let's see....1368, foundation of Ming Dynasty. 1387, China reunified. 1388, Chinese expansion begins, at the Battle of Buinor in north-eastern Mongolia, and, ah, the 'persuasion' of the Korean I dynasty, founded in 1392, to 'adhere' to Chinese rule/influence.
Yung-le's reign, 1403-1424 sees more expansion, at the expense of non-Chinese: the Oirats in the north west, the Tatars in the north east. So, we have the battle of Onon River, 1410, in Mongolia, and the invasion of Dai Viet in Viet Nam, in 1406.
The policy of conquest, and the pursuit of trade went hand in hand. What stopped further Ming expansion in the north were defeats inflicted by Mongol/steppe forces.
The land campaigns took place at the same time as Cheng Ho's voyages of trade and 'persuasion', and had much the same purpose- economic domination and political subjugation. |
Chinese territorial expansion is characteristically different from European colonialism, don't you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
satyajedi
|
|
"Chinese territorial expansion is characteristically different from European colonialism, don't you think?"
I agree. They are completely different.
Imperialism = You live in our empire now.
Colonialism = we're going to set up a puppet state created to facilitate the export of any meaningfull resources in your country.
Big difference between those two. States that are conquored aren't systematically impoverished. Colonialism is worse.
Also, not to state the obvious, but other than China, every single place in the world has been dominated by a European power. That's pretty significant.
-Satya
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Manstein3
|
|
@satyajedi
You forgot Turkey, heart of the former Osmanic Empire, which was an imperialist nation on its own, and Japan!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-12-2001 17:40
They fighted against their neighbours, like everybody. And they builded an empire with fire and sword, not with arts and polite words.
|