Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Yes, we're telling you the Japanese were bloodthirsty baby killers. It's a historical fact witnessed by tens of thousands of people who experienced their compassion first hand. Now a days they wouldn't hurt a fly. Curtiss Lemay did a lot toward gentling them down and making them downright reasonable.

According to UN International Conventions, "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

This definition does not make any difference between prosecutions based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the ethnicity and race remains debatable among anthropologists.

According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

There is nothing racist about calling a group savages due to their behavior. It would be racist if he said that they were savages simply because they are japanese, but he did not. He referred to their actions and posted a link to an article which described some of their savage behavior.

He said all japanese were stinking savages. That is racist. Period. Why you are in here trying to defend that is beyond me.

Can you quote him for me and provide a link to that quote to show where he said all japanese were stinking savages? I haven't seen that...

Oooops...

ORIGINAL: Mart

Can I ust add a touch of cynicism. While the Japanese were raping Nanking, and half the rest of the east, the brave American soldiers and airmen were in their bases, and enjoying the same peaceful, wealthy lifestyles that the average US citizen carried on having throughout the war, which, incidentally, the US did not bother to join, and become "outraged" about until they were bombed at Pearl harbour, which was a great source of relief to most of the british cabinet who thought that maybe the US would now put it's forces where it's "outrage" was. The incident will not go down in the history of infamy, regardless of poular belief. It was a mere pinprick. Thousands upon thousands of other innocent people died that day, and every day for years at the hands of the Japanese and Nazis. The Japanese also made a pre-emptive strike on Port Arthur during their war with Russia, and nobody seemed to bothered then, and the Japanese army treated prisoners very well.

A good deal of cant is trotted out about all this. Is someone a savage if they stand by, quite comfortably, watching other people butcher each other, or is it only the butcherers that are savages? If you were all so bothere over in the US, you'd have pulled your fingers out in 1939, or maybe earlier in the case of China. Still, mustn't let anything get in the way of a good burger.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't the 'rape of nanking' happen in 37-38?

Oh that's right, the brave brits didn't lift a finger about it either...

As to this question, "Is someone a savage if they stand by, quite comfortably, watching other people butcher each other, or is it only the butcherers that are savages?" I'd say it's the butcherers that are the savages not those who didn't perform the act.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
Can you quote him for me and provide a link to that quote to show where he said all japanese were stinking savages? I haven't seen that...

Heh, can you see the post above yours?

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
Can you quote him for me and provide a link to that quote to show where he said all japanese were stinking savages? I haven't seen that...

Heh, can you see the post above yours?

Yes I can. I also saw the quote in it's entire context which was on the basis of the actions of the military. I believe he stated all japanese soldiers in post #35 and more succinctly in post #44:

"Nothing of subtance other than a documented history of savagry and sadism that would put Attilla the Hun to shame. "Substance" would be taking a the rare examples of criminal activity on the part of a few individual American soldiers and comparing it to the institutional barbarism that was standard operating procedure with the Japanese armed forces."

If he meant it differently than the context and meant all japanese then I think he went too far. However, it's not how I read any of the exchange from the beginning of the thread in which it discusses the actions of individual japanese soldiers in a movie and his first response with a link to actions of japanese sailors.

If you care to look at all the bolded words in that quote, you might see the context more clearly...

Now a days they wouldn't hurt a fly.

Who's THEY...and what did Lemay do to THEM?

Hi Reiryc,

You're right. We did stand by. To be fair,  if that's the right word, we couldn't have done a whole pile about it. My grandfather was in the army all his life, and during that period he was stationed at Hong Kong. My mum remembers that she (and other kids) were thrown off buses in Hong Kong , if they were holding toys made in Japan. I can't blame my mum, as she was knee high to a grasshopper at the time, but it does suggest that the British administration may have been more concerned with the colony's survival , than it was about the chinese elsewhere. I don't know a great deal about it, but that would be my guess. It's no great surprise that Hong kong fell pretty quick. Fortunately, my grandfather and family were elsewhere. He soon ended up in North Africa. Point taken though, and I wouldn't defend it.

Thanks for proving my point. As I said, no Swedish citizen was put in these camps.

Immaterial. They were still internment camps (not refugee camps) in which people were imprisoned solely because of their ethnicity.

In the US camps, US citizens were incarcerated because of their ethnicity.

Correct. There were also many who were interned who were not US citizens. The people who were interned were generally those living in sensitive areas, so they were not interned because of their ethnicity, but rather because a combination of ethnicity and proximity to important military or industrial assets. It's not really politically correct to say it, but when you consider some of the graffiti scrawled in many of these places, the concern over pro-Japan subversives was not entirely misplaced. Still, in my view there ought to have been a review process implemented very early in the whole thing to excuse from detainment those who really had no direct connection to Japanese nationalist groups.

That means that the US was alone, together with Germany and Japan put their own citizens in these camps because of their ethnicity.

That is factually incorrect. There are dozens of examples from European states in WW2 of states interning people solely because of ethnicity. Again, the singling-out of the United States from company that also includes Sweden, Finland, Croatia, the USSR, Poland (vis Ukrainians in 1937-39), Serbia, Vichy France, Italy, simply demonstrates on your part a lack of knowledge or else a simple bias.

More the latter, I think, since comparing American internment camps with German and Japanese death camps is an idiotic comparison.

False. And you should stop trying to find facts on wikipedia.

Not false. And you should start trying to be a little more informed about the facts.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
Can you quote him for me and provide a link to that quote to show where he said all japanese were stinking savages? I haven't seen that...

Heh, can you see the post above yours?

At the most he is predjudiced as is everyone with an opinion...
I am prejudiced to the fact that in a narrow time frame some Germans followed orders to kill my Polish Grandfathers family, which they did at their farm but I am not racist against Germans from that time period and neither are Americans or Poles for that matter and that is the key, my prejudice is derived from the discriminating emotions my Grandfather expressed to me when he shared the story; I now too have a prejudice to Germans who invaded Poland at that time and in the context of sharing his feeling of outrage.
But, I do not feel Germans are unworthy of equal respect.
The only shot Dino had in copping racism in his use of Bold qoutes was with "were telling you", but even then he could only prove predjudice shared amongst individuals using discrimination of the actions and reports stated.
There is no racisim at all here, it is personal view and derived from the perceived emotions of the people who were there at the time and experienced the subject at hand, passing their view down to others, it is the discerning of these views done within the context of the time period and the morals and law of that period as well as those in the present time that are being expressed here.
In other words a free open discourse of past events in the present.
Racism is untouchables in India.
Or any caste or serf system.
Or any Pogrom.

ORIGINAL: Mart

Hi Reiryc,

You're right. We did stand by. To be fair, if that's the right word, we couldn't have done a whole pile about it. My grandfather was in the army all his life, and during that period he was stationed at Hong Kong. My mum remembers that she (and other kids) were thrown off buses in Hong Kong , if they were holding toys made in Japan. I can't blame my mum, as she was knee high to a grasshopper at the time, but it does suggest that the British administration may have been more concerned with the colony's survival , than it was about the chinese elsewhere. I don't know a great deal about it, but that would be my guess. It's no great surprise that Hong kong fell pretty quick. Fortunately, my grandfather and family were elsewhere. He soon ended up in North Africa. Point taken though, and I wouldn't defend it.

My point wasn't to try to trash on the brits because, as you aptly point out, there wasn't a whole lot they could do about it. I would also argue that it wasn't the brits responsibility to do anything about it either, but that doesn't equate to accepting that the actions the japanese took at nanking were anything short of barbaric.

@robpost3

Is it about semantics now???

Yes, it's a "personal view", and that personal view is racist...Nobody has accused Doggie of killing any Japanese yet.

ORIGINAL: Dino

@robpost3

Is it about semantics now???

Yes, it's a "personal view", and that personal view is racist...Nobody has accused Doggie of killing any Japanese yet.

Semantics, yes...in a way and no...
do you know why Doggie feels strongly...if you read his posts for their merit it seems to me that he is very disturbed(in more ways than one[;)])by the these atrocities and is effected personally to some degree.
Would you feel the thread would be better if I just agree with you and say he is a racist?

"personal view"
if we make personal views racist then where does that end...are the accusers racist by default then, let the discourse take its natural course (me making an arse of meself).
Are we so collectively guilt ridden that we play the race card all the time, is it easier then standing by our own opinion?

ORIGINAL: robpost3

ORIGINAL: Dino

@robpost3

Is it about semantics now???

Yes, it's a "personal view", and that personal view is racist...Nobody has accused Doggie of killing any Japanese yet.

Semantics, yes...in a way and no...
do you know why Doggie feels strongly...if you read his posts for their merit it seems to me that he is very disturbed(in more ways than one[;)])by the these atrocities and is effected personally to some degree.
Would you feel the thread would be better if I just agree with you and say he is a racist?

I know all about being disturbed. [;)] (and personally effected)...and it's not a good enough excuse.

I would feel the thread would be better if portraying a single positive example of an enemy soldier in a movie didn't raise such a commotion.

ORIGINAL: Dino

ORIGINAL: robpost3

ORIGINAL: Dino

@robpost3

Is it about semantics now???

Yes, it's a "personal view", and that personal view is racist...Nobody has accused Doggie of killing any Japanese yet.

Semantics, yes...in a way and no...
do you know why Doggie feels strongly...if you read his posts for their merit it seems to me that he is very disturbed(in more ways than one[;)])by the these atrocities and is effected personally to some degree.
Would you feel the thread would be better if I just agree with you and say he is a racist?

I know all about being disturbed. [;)] (and personally effected)...and it's not a good enough excuse.

I would feel the thread would be better if portraying a single positive example of an enemy soldier in a movie didn't raise such a commotion.

Hollywierd is racist and biased[:'(]
You are more likely to find it from a Japanese person handing stories down from the traditional way...

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Here mdiehl. Racist remarks bolded.

ORIGINAL: Doggie

They were stinking savages, and that's why Dutch, Australians, British, and American soldiers seldom took prisoners, and allied airmen happily strafed the miserable bastards in their lifeboats after sinking their ships. And they had every bit of it coming to them.

You know nothing of racism.

When I was aboard the USS Coral Sea (CV-43), we made a port visit to Sasebo, Japan.

On my first, and last, stroll through the city, one could not help but notice all the hand written signs pinned to the doors of shops and clubs...

"Japanese Only"

That, is racism.

Calling them savages and bastards, that is being polite.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: robpost3

"personal view"
if we make personal views racist then where does that end...are the accusers racist by default then, let the discourse take its natural course (me making an arse of meself).
Are we so collectively guilt ridden that we play the race card all the time, is it easier then standing by our own opinion?

It is my personal view and my own opinion that Doggies views, as witnessed here, are racist...and I don't see how that prevents the discourse from taking it's natural course.

Indeed, everyone is free to make an arse of themselves to their hart's content...Why should Doggie be an exeption?

ORIGINAL: Dino

It is my personal view and my own opinion that Doggies views, as witnessed here, are racist...and I don't see how that prevents the discourse from taking it's natural course.

Indeed, everyone is free to make an arse of themselves to their hart's content...Why should Doggie be an exeption?

No exception it is just not racist; it is expressing an opinion and by calling him a racist you are denying him his opinion...ignore, agree or be outraged, whatever but do not supress his right to an opnion by demonizing it.
You don't like what he said and it seems you are trying to construe it into a statement of all Japanese all the time are smelly barbarians including those yet to be born.
There was emotion in his statement making it more so personal, you seem to be jumping on a racist automaton band wagon.
That derails the course of the thread big time.
Do you feel that there is difference between the treatment of prisoners in Japanese camps as opposed to others?
Do you feel there is collective guilt?

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: mjk428

You just don't have a clue. You're telling someone that was actually there how he should characterize GW1. I'm sure there are GW1 vets that would take issue with Sarge, but they don't need you to defend them.

I seriously doubt a GW1 Tornado pilot would be bragging about his combat record to a BoB Spitfire pilot. Obviously GW1 was combat but it wasn't Iwo. Also, no doubt it was very real combat for the Iraqis. It's the only war I'm aware that got called off because too many of the enemy were being killed (Highway of Death).

Well, it seems we are in agreement. GW1 was combat. Thank you.

Does this mean that you & I are the arbiters of everything? If so, we've got a lot of work to do.


Anyway, I never claimed it wasn't. If you would actually seek to understand the meaning behind people's words, you'd see that Sarge never claimed it wasn't combat either. What was being conveyed by him was that compared to other conflicts down through the ages it barely qualified to be called "combat". Note the use of quotes, just as he did. That is his opinion and one he'd be entitled to voice even if he wasn't a GW1 vet. Although, the personal attacks towards an actual GW1 vet for making the statement was priceless.