Wednesday February 15, 2012

DanManjt's past comments

  • 0

    DanManjt

    The Democrats are having a fine Convention thus far.

    Day 1, Michelle Obama lets us know her husband is a regular guy. Check. Added plus: those two kids got their daddy about 4 million votes.

    Day 2, Clinton backs Obama --> party unified under Obama's leadership Check Start McCain equals Mc Bush. Check

    Tonight, Day 3

    National Security. Here I bet the dems, as usual, punt.

    Posted in: Clinton salutes Obama as Democrats rip McCain at convention

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Pish-posh.

    Your original statement does not stand. Since no amount of reason seems to affect you, I will bid you farewell.

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Hello Again Cleo,

    I notice you continue to fail to respond to my earlier posts. I will repost:

    Since BrightEyes did us the favor of exposing the myth that history is written by the victor, I wonder if you have any comment on the implication of that on your argument -- seeing as how you predicated much of your argument on that canard.

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    ProudKoreanGuy

    Korea is and never has been mono-ethnic, mono-cultural, or mono-linguistic. Within the penninsula there always has been diversity. Nowadays, Cheju most notably belies the assumed racial cultural and linguistic uniformity promoted my the nationalist myth.

    The same nationalist myth that promotes the preposterous idea that the Chousan Dynasty was a nation-state.

    It was not.

    Posted in: Ainu rise up from the margins of Japanese society

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Cleo

    The innocent subjects of the Emperor were tricked by the gangster militarists into war. Or so goes the myth. The Left loves that myth because, if true, it supports the dearly held pacifist tenant that no people would willingly start a war. Since people do not want war, they must have been duped, mislead, or somehow tricked by their wicked and nasty leaders.

    Appealing as that belief may be to you, it is not true.

    The domestic oppression aside, the fact is that the war was wildly popular within Japan. Most older Japanese reflecting on the events recalled the repeated spontaneous outpouring of joy on every occasion Japan's expansion and aggression. It was this unbridled nationalism on the local level that repeatedly ratcheted up nationalist fervor throughout the land. It was this nationalist fervor that led Imperial Japan into conflict with all of her neighbors just as much, if not more, than the unchecked machinations of the less circumspect amongst the militarists.

    It is this nationalism that allowed for the head-chopping contest between two brutish Imperial Army officers to not only happen, but make front page news in Japan.

    In short, Japan did not suffer the war; she prosecuted it.

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    In fact, in Koreas case, they don't even have a united nation. Indeed, Korea has never really been a unified nation-state. Never.

    Perhaps that is why Koreans are so nationalistic.

    Posted in: Ainu rise up from the margins of Japanese society

  • 0

    DanManjt

    ProudKoreanguy

    Korea and Japan use their nationalist myths of ethnic purity to bind their respective nations together. But myths aside, Korea and Japan are not mono-ethic. There are no mono-ethnic nations. The world is a bit more complex than national myths. All nations are comprised of multi-ethnic populations.

    All.

    Posted in: Ainu rise up from the margins of Japanese society

  • 0

    DanManjt

    As a resident of this "God forlorn island", I'll say it's a good point that Ainu used to live also in much of Honshu. But the idea of their being pushed back and coralled is baseless bluster.

    Nessie

    If you think the Ainu used to live throughout all of Honshu, how do you explain current demographics? They just up and left?

    Posted in: Ainu rise up from the margins of Japanese society

  • 0

    DanManjt

    woops

    And that nationalism incorrectly states that Koreans and Japanese are mono-ethnic cultures.

    Which they demonstratebly are not.

    So, if any group is to be accused of misusing the concepts of race and ethnicity in order to promote a nationalist or cultural bias, look no further than Japan and Korea.

    Posted in: Ainu rise up from the margins of Japanese society

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Proud Korean Guy

    I am unfamiliar any current or recent scholars or academics in either anthropology or sociology that use the terms ethnicity and race in the manner you have. In Western research, the 19th century concept of Race has over the past half century been jetisoned. Simply put, it is no longer the lingo. It is no longer the lingo because its flawed.

    The flaws in your categorization, unfortunately, is not mere semantics. Insofar as semantics means the use and meaning of words, the way in which we discuss this issue is not tangential to the issue of whether Japan and Korea are multi-ethnic. To wit: the dominant people from those nations erroneously view ethnicity primarily as a pure blood-line, and link that assumed blood line to their national identity.

    In short, in Japan and Korea, nationalism defines ethnicity.

    Posted in: Ainu rise up from the margins of Japanese society

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Seiharinokaze

    Thank you for finally responding to my asking you to judge whether Imperial Japan fought for good or for bad.

    Since these are substantive replies to my question, I will address each in turn;

    Subsistence and security are not something to be morally judged, good or bad.

    This statement is incorrect in two accounts: its premise and its conclusion.

    The premise is that Imperial Japanese leaders began hostilities to preserve its sovereignty. This is not true. Imperial Japan did not begin hostilities to preserve its sovereignty. It began hostilities to increase land holdings, power and influence. In short, Imperial Japan initiated hostilities to increase its Empire, not to protect its sovereignty.

    Second, you conclude that morals are not to be applied when discerning the difference between national interest and national ambition. That is, you conclude that morals are only relevant to power politics insofar as the Victor use morals to determine the justice of their cause. This thinking is nothing other than Might Makes Right. If you honestly believe that might makes right, that only might makes right, then you must logically recognize that the US was right, since the US beat Japan Imperial Japan into submission. Further, if you believe that might makes right, you then must believe that the US was right to beat Japan into submission, that the fire-bombings were right, and that the two atomic attacks were right. Not because it ended the war (ie ends justifies the means)m not because it ended the war with the lowest loss of life, not because it was the " least abhorrent choice" but because it was the ultimate exercise of power. And since might makes right, the ultimate exercise of right must inevitably be the ultimate dictation of right.

    Your conclusion, then that morality ( or ethics, or whatever words you wish to use to describe out capacity to discern right from wrong, good from bad) has nothing to do with judging the difference nation's war aims belies common sense and the accumulated experience of the ages.

    There are just and unjust wars.

    In a wider perspective America's confrontation with Japan is to be regarded as that of imperialism vs another imperialism rather than good vs bad.

    You can see, then, that the only possible reply to this moral equivalency -- the most favorite revisionist prevarication -- is:

    would you say the same about Nazi Germany and the US?

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Ohiodonna

    Why are you uncomfortable with the candidates?

    Posted in: Obama, McCain reach out to Christian voters

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Ossan

    The thing is, you are not telling the truth.

    Posted in: Jack Brady, WWII death march survivor, dead at 87

  • 0

    DanManjt

    woops

    And Mod: fear not. I do not plan to turn this into a discussion of the Civil War, insofar as the any discussion thereof is relevant to my point on this thread.

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    They were fighting for what they thought was the right cause.

    Perhaps. And perhaps not. Many men fought for many reasons.

    The point is not whether they thought their cause was right.

    It is wheter their cause was right.

    So let me ask you:

    Do you think the South fought for a good cause?

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Seiharinokaze

    You have replied, but have not addressed the content of my question.

    I am asking you judge whether you think Imperial Japan fought for good or for bad.

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Good. Because you are not the only one who has a relative who fought Imperial Japan.

    And it seems to me that your bringing up some US troops behavior on a thread about the death of Jack Brady is in poor taste to his ordeal and memory.

    Shame on you.,

    Moderator: All readers, stay on topic please.

    Posted in: Jack Brady, WWII death march survivor, dead at 87

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Ossan

    Your uncle's recollection that "some of our Marines" were brutes does not create any moral equivalency between the US and Imperial Japan.

    Posted in: Jack Brady, WWII death march survivor, dead at 87

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Seiharinokaze

    I am still having trouble discerning an answer to my question.

    I know what I think: Imperial Japan, along with her ally Nazi Germany, fought for bad. The US fought for good.

    I wish to know what do you think. This is now the third time:

    Do you think Imperial Japan fought for good? Do you think her ally, Nazi Germany, fought for good? Do you think the US fought for bad?

    Posted in: Yasukuni

  • 0

    DanManjt

    We all know that men & women all over the world cheat... it's no surprise...

    I do not.

    And it would be of great surprise, to say the least, if my wife did.

    The crux of the issue is not whether people engage in extra-marital affairs.

    They do.

    The crux of of the issue is: is that what you want in your marriage?

    Posted in: The do's and don'ts of having an affair

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

View all