|
|||
10-14-2010, 09:22 PM
Quote:
Strictly speaking, 憲兵隊 means "law-soldier corps" (where by "corps", I mean any organized body of soldiers, rather than the specific class of army unit consisting of several tens of thousands of soldiers and commanded by a lieutenant general.) To an American, the term "military police" implies a group of soldiers whose job it is to police other soldiers. The powers of U.S. military police are strictly limited, and the military is always considered to be subservient to the civilian government, except in extreme circumstances when martial law is declared. But "law-soldier corps", when interpreted literally, can have a much broader meaning. (The same is true of "military police" if you ignore its U.S. connotation.) It simply means a body of soldiers with police functions; there is no limit on how broad those police powers may be. And in the case of the kempeitai, those powers were very broad indeed. Though it wasn't the only police force within Japan, the kempeitai still had extensive jurisdiction over the Japanese civilian population, as well as responsibility for law enforcement over occupied territories. Quote:
No, they were not. Slavery had ended in 1865. The status of African-Americans before World War 2 (hell, even after the war, before the civil rights era) was surely an injustice, but it was not slavery. No matter how tempting it may be rhetorically to call it such, doing so cheapens the meaning of the word and blurs the abomination committed by the U.S. before the Civil War and the victory achieved at its end. Although African-Americans' hard-won legal rights were greatly undermined in the South after the Civil War, and though they were still treated as an underclass even outside the South, they were not taken back into slavery. Slaves are humans treated as property, as others' work tools, with little or no legal rights of their own. |
|
||||
10-15-2010, 12:23 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I may have tried too hard to make my point and been offensive. I apologize, take back "downright" and make the uppercase SLAVES to lowercase, but that's as far as I go. 1865 was 75 years before the war started, and I don't believe the practice of treating colored people "as others' work tools, with little or no legal rights of their own" was completely abolished the next day Yankees won. Takahashi Korekiyo(高橋是清)who was the prime ministor of Japan before the war from 1921 to 1922, was sold to a family called Browns in Oakland for $50 when he went to the states for study, and later bought back by the Japanese consulate. That was in 1867. I'm not saying the US officially supported slavery in 1940, and I didn't, but Jim Crow laws existed until 1965, and non-white people were officially discriminated and their rights were limited. "Colords were slaves not long before WW2" may still be rhetoric, but considering all these points, it is one that is not too far from the fact. Of course I would make more technically accurate remarks, if the debate was more fact based. |
|
||||
12-03-2010, 10:20 PM
Quote:
In the book written by Raymond Lamont Brown the Kempitai rounded up 59,000 Japanese between 1933 and 1936 sending 2,400 to prison and executing 1,300. Amoung those were communists, journalists, Christians and teachers. They were more brutal outside Japan than in but they were instrumental in supressing public dissent in a government that dragged the whole country to hell with it. |
|
||||
12-04-2010, 01:24 AM
There are some major differences between how Germany and japan handled guilt at the end of the war. Some say that Japan has not fully dealt with their guilt. Germany took a stance of collective guilt, which blames the German people to some extent. This shows that the people had at least a minor part in the war. Japan more or less blamed their leaders at the time and moved on.
I have heard of the textbook discrepancy as well. Japanese textbooks kinda gloss over the things that lead to the war and stick to just dates and times. Although it does seem like China wont accept the apology so they can hold it over japan. |
|
|||
12-04-2010, 07:47 AM
Quote:
After a conflict on the scale of WW2 what is the criteria of handling the "guilt". Germany took a stance of collective guilt, which blames the German people to some extent. Forgive the vulgarity but... Bollocks! look up Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i.e just cos you were German dosent mean you were bad. Just because you were japanese dosent mean you were bad. atrocities were commited by all sides in 1 degree or another./ |
|
|||
12-06-2010, 05:38 AM
Just to put things in perspective a bit
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|