≡ Menu

Palisades Park comfort woman statue vandalism a hate crime? Really?

The Hankyoreh, quoting Palisades Park city council chairman Jong Chul Lee, reports that police are investigating five members of a Japanese right-wing group for the Oct 27 desecration of a comfort women memorial.

The Hani also notes that if the suspects are arrested, they could be charged with a hate crime. Palisades Park mayor James Rotundo reportedly called it a hate crime, and “most experts” apparently share his opinion. An official with a Korean group in Palisades Park said the dominant opinion was that the incident was, at the very least, vandalism, but it was close to be a hate crime when you consider the historical relationship between Korea and Japan.

The Korean American Voters’ Council’s Kim Dong-suk said the statue was property of the US government, erected through the power of American citizens including the Korean-American community, and the attack was reckless criminal act attacking American citizens. He said punishing the offenders was important, but they also needed to hold the Japanese government, which is distorting and denying history, to account in the name of American civic society.

Senator Bob Menendez (D, NJ) took some time off from (allegedly) banging hookers in the Dominican Republic to offer a couple of words about the comfort women statue attack as well.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • http://globalasianculture.com Liz

    Newsflash: Not all hate crimes involve a) Swastikas b) Jewish victimization c) the violation of the human rights of Europeans.

    Newsflash 2: Believe it or not, non-White peoples also have a right to erect memorials to the victims of their community history. Hope you don’t have a problem with that.

    Finally — that I am even typing this shit up to edify your post is just…unbelievable.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Yes Liz,

    that is all true, but I guess the bigger question is why have a designation of HATE crimes in the first place. Its a crime, or it isn’t and it does not need to be designated as a hate crime. This was a crime against property. No people were hurt, and it should be treated as a crime against property.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Newsflash: Not all hate crimes involve a) Swastikas b) Jewish victimization c) the violation of the human rights of Europeans.

    Nobody said they did.

    Newsflash 2: Believe it or not, non-White peoples also have a right to erect memorials to the victims of their community history.

    Nobody said they didn’t. I, for one, have quite enjoyed watching the Comfort Women monuments go up in New Jersey and Long Island.

    Anyway, you forgot Newsflash 3: The post the Japanese asshat(s) in question attached to the statue said Takeshima was Japanese territory. Now, everyone knows (well, maybe not everyone. My bad, Gerry) the guy in question is a hateful dick, and attaching a “Takeshima is Japanese territory” post to a comfort woman memorial is a dick move. But a hate crime? Like SalarymaninSeoul, I don’t like the “hate crime” designation to begin with, and certainly don’t think expressing your opinion about a territorial dispute between two foreign nations on American soil—even in an act of vandalism—should count as a “hate crime.” If Korea had hate crime legislation—which, thank God, it doesn’t, although some apparently wish it did—should I be charged with a hate crime if I go up to the British War Memorial in Gloucester Valley, Paju and plant a post telling the Brits to get out of Ulster?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    …hmmm. Well, I don’t know that if the act was not a hate crime then that it was a crime at all.

    This is what I understand happened. A Japan sympathizer placed a wooden stake with a political statement written on the stake beside monument, which was on public grounds, commemorating comfort women. The stake caused no physical damage to the monument and was easily removed. The monument is in the same physical condition after the stake was removed as before the stake was placed beside the monument. The following assumes the above understanding of the facts.

    I got nothin’. Littering?

    I think vandalism denotes at least damage if not destruction. (I know that this is not a legal forum, and we are not legal scholars, <>, but local statutes might not even define vandalism and use some kind of malicious mischief or trespass.) Good luck with prosecuting trespass in a public park. The mayor’s statement sounds like a sop to a growing constituency.

    Anyone want to tackle hate crime, potentially incurring the wrath of Liz?

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    So wait, if no crime has been committed, how could a HATE crime have been committed?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    First, it is a monument, not a statue.

    Second, the monument was not vandalized; a stick was stuck in the ground next to it.

    Third, it was not a hate crime; the stick read, “Takeshima is Japanese territory.” Where’s the hate?

    Forth, the article is stupid; it called the stick in the ground “terror.” Who was terrorized?

    Fifth, the mayor of Palisades Park is the “asshat” for calling it a hate crime. He is just a goofball politician who is obviously pandering to the large Korean population in the town.

    Last, the inscription on the Comfort Women monument says that the Japanese military “abduct” more than 200,000 women and girls. That is a lie told to vilify the Japanese. I consider the monument more of a hate crime than the Takeshima stick.

  • jkitchstk

    Koreans whining about hate, isn’t that ironic? And the Hankyoreh reporting on it like it’s a crime to hate in S. Korea.

  • Q

    The Japanese arsehattery could be said to be akin to a lunatic demonstrating a sign “The US, not Japan, was the Aggressor” at United States National Slavery Museum.

    LINK: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/82_S4.pdf

  • Q

    Actually, the Japanese asshat contributed to elucidating the truth that aggression of Japan to Korea which started from taking over Dokdo is correlated with Japanese enforced military sex slavery. If Dokdo was an inception of Japanese colonial aggression, the Japanese military sex slavery might represent a page of the culmination of Japanese colonialism. So he made a point that both are the same sh*t. Good job, Mr. Assuhatto.

  • Q

    the inscription on the Comfort Women monument says that the Japanese military “abduct” more than 200,000 women and girls. That is a lie told to vilify the Japanese.

    http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/10/30/japanese-rightwing-asshat-defaces-new-jersey-comfort-women-memorial/#comment-504803

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Yet another argument by akin to, er… I mean analogy. I am going to place your post in the context of this thread.

    You in your post have conceded (“a lunatic demonstrating a sign“) what the rest of the world has already acknowledged and history has judged: Japan was the aggressor in the Pacific by attacking the U.S. without a declaration of war.

    Has the rest of the world acknowledged Dokdo as Korea’s?

    (Again, I don’t know why I have to always end these with “I hope Korea wins its Dokdo claim…“, but I have feelings of peril if I don’t.)

  • Q

    I’d be sorry to post this again. During the Allies occupation of Japan, General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers promulgated SCAPIN No. 677 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SCAPIN677):

    Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakano-tori) Islands], and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

    The SCAPIN has been revised twice: SCAPIN 841 issued on March 22, 1946 returning Izu and Nanpo Islands to Japan; the revised SCAPIN 677 dated December 5, 1951 returned the islands between 30-29 degree N. latitude and Kagoshima Ten Village Islands to Japanese sovereignty. However, no such directives, memoranda and/or orders were ever issued to change the separation of Dokdo. The territorial provisions in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty merely conformed what had already become an accomplished fact. The separation of Dokdo by SCAPIN No. 677 — so far as it has not been changed specifically — should be acknowledged and respected as the accomplished facts which were actually carried into effect by the Peace Treaty. (Source: Professor Young K Kim, A Suggestion for an Impeccable logical integrity, Dec. 2011: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=young_kim)

    San Francisco Peace Treaty pronounced that:

    Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities or authorized by Japanese law at that time, and will take no action subjecting Allied nationals to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts or omissions.

    SF Peace Treaty does not contain any definition of Japanese territory. In other words, without recognizing SCAPIN directives, Japan owns no territory, even four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku). SCAPIN directives excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory, and SF Peace Treaty ordered Japan to recognize the directive. That decision has not changed, even though some islands were returned to Japan later with subsequent directives.

  • Q

    If you are more academically interested, please refer to authors of scholarly articles among whom is Professor of Law, Jon Van Dyke, BA, cum laude, Yale University, 1964 JD, cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1967:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Q, Wow!!! That’s amazing stuff. Run it over to the International Court of Justice.

  • Q

    SK is too busy to bring Japanese asshats to ICJ. Let them fail by themselves.

  • yuna

    Would like to see the stick before I make any judgment.

    While the Western, rational, BK Whopper chomping side of me thinks that placing a stick with a political statement on it is indeed a very dainty Hello Kitty way of expressing one’s views,

    the Oriental, vodoo, omurice-eating, witchcraft from 부적 (those weird writings that people buy from fortune tellers to stick to things to make things better or worse), charm, talisman, 제사 (bowing to the ancestors), shit, Ring (Japanese version) the horror film was a scary movie especially that bit with all the tiny writings, side of me thinks this might actually be more sinister than it looks.

  • bimbalimba
  • hardyandtiny

    There’s absolutely no emotion in Korea, the entire culture is based on money and sex.
    If the Japanese simply don’t comment on a matter; such as the “comfort women” it will lose momentum in the Korean mind as fast as a Rockport hiking shoe.

  • Q

    Oh, Nippon, the islands of “setting Sun” where flourishing perv sex industry lead to paradoxical population shrinkage. SK should get the lesson. I hope.

    http://japanwatching.com/society/169-japans-sex-industry

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #15 Q: “SK is too busy to bring Japanese asshats to ICJ. Let them fail by themselves.”

    Part of me thinks that you actually believe that, while no part of you can conceive how weak that line sounds to anyone who is not Korean.

    #16 yuna: “Would like to see the stick before I make any judgment.”

    The stake is aesthetically very attractive. Google the story for a pic.

    I think neither of your sides provide an accurate assessment. The stake is more than a wink, wink, nudge, nudge cartoonish calling card and less than an instrument to impale the anti-Christ.

    The stake was a brilliant bit of bait that the Korean community swallowed hook, line, and sinker. He raised awareness for Japanese and others that a counter-claim exists. He did so by propinquity that no one outside of Koreans is going to view as malicious vandalism, and he will start people to question, “why doesn’t Korea go to the ICJ.” He won’t be charged let alone convicted of anything, and the whole thing cost him $20.

    Korea is fighting a long, slow losing battle if it thinks that “SK is too busy,” “the evidence is so obvious,” and “there is no dispute” to bother to go to the ICJ. The stake introduced the idea of dispute.

  • Q

    It’s Japan that has problem of 똥줄탄다. SK could be slow as cow and watch like a tiger (호시우행, 虎視牛行).

  • yuna

    #20
    Well, then all hail, the stick!

    Korea is fighting a long, slow losing battle if it thinks that “SK is too busy,” “the evidence is so obvious,” and “there is no dispute” to bother to go to the ICJ. The stake introduced the idea of dispute.

    I thought that the civilian Koreans were doing that “There is a dispute” plenty for you in the first place.

    I never liked the statue of a girl outside the Japanese embassy, nor the actual plaque for that matter, but if you put it that way, well, I might think they are brilliant too.

    Anyway, I am already bored of this subject, because #18 I have too much money and sex on my brain.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #20 Yuna, the stake has paid for itself.

    “I thought that the civilian Koreans were doing that ‘There is a dispute’ plenty for you in the first place.”

    Korean have paradoxically claimed “there is no dispute” all the while waving banners at the Olympics, organizing holidays, and indoctrinating school children to ask foreign ambassadors about Dokdo.

    Here’s a valid argument by analogy: Americans don’t wave banners “Hawaii is American territory” at the Olympics because there is no dispute. What’s more, the Olympics would not deem a Hawaiian pride banner waved by an American as a political statement because there is no dispute.

    I never liked the statue of a girl outside the Japanese embassy, nor the actual plaque for that matter, but if you put it that way, well, I might think they are brilliant too.

    Yet more analogous reasoning. No, they aren’t brilliant too. The rest of the world is already sympathetic to the comfort women’s plight. There really isn’t any battle for world opinion, and there is no way for Korea to bait Japan to go to the International Court of Justice over the matter.

    Again, Korea’s arguments for not going to the ICJ sound weak, and they make foreigners doubt the strength of Korea’s claims to Dokdo.

  • yuna

    You are right. But you should also make the courtesy of really differentiating what the Korean government was doing from the civilians.

    The rest of the world is already sympathetic to the comfort women’s plight.

    hmm, I would say most were not aware, the Japanese included, and then not even that. At any rate, what the women want is not sympathy from them. Sympathy is something you feel, when your friend hurts his foot, not when you hurt it.
    “Oh, I’m so sorry to hear that I hurt your foot.”
    Anonymous Joe.

  • yuna

    That Anonymous Joe should go at the beginning of my previous comment.

  • cm

    Anonymous_joe, you’re getting two issues confused. The real issue here is the memorial dedicated to the comfort women, not Dokdo/Takeshima. The question isn’t “has the rest of the world acknowledged Dokdo as Korea’s?”. It’s really “has the rest of the world acknowledged that comfort women were real?”. The answer is “yes”, but only outside of Japan.

    It’s arguable that it’s intention of hate to bring up the island issue at the base of the comfort women memorial. Based on the fact alone that right wing Japanese are hateful people already, I think the answer is pretty clear what the intentions were. But should it considered be a crime when there has been no vandalism, is another question that’s kind of up in the air. If someone put a banner in the Jewish Holocaust memorial saying “Israel belongs to Palestine”, should it be considered a hate crime?

  • yuna

    cm, I think it’s time you went off and thought about some sex and money.

  • cm

    Why is that?

  • yuna

    I personally like the stick, only because it silences all the punters who used to say “Japanese don’t care about Dokdo, they only care about Senkaku”

  • yuna

    #28
    Or a Rockport Hiking Shoe.

  • Q

    SK could be slow and it is wise to be very slow and wait to see how China, Russia and Japan fairly deal with Senkaku and Kuril islands. Why bother SK when no urging on ICJ to China and Russia? 그렇게 한국이 만만하니?

  • yuna

    #29

    I personally like the stick, only because it silences all the punters who used to say “Japanese don’t care about Dokdo, they only care about Senkaku”

    But, but, the Koreans made them care, Yadi Yadi Ya.

    But but, If they truly didn’t care they wouldn’t care even if they made them care.

    Yum, Donuts.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #24 Yuna: “At any rate, what the women want is not sympathy from them. Sympathy is something you feel, when your friend hurts his foot, not when you hurt it.”

    When I wrote that “the rest of the world is already sympathetic to the comfort women’s plight”, I did not use sympathy with the meaning had sympathy for; I used it in the sense of on their side. We are not otherwise in disagreement.

    #26 cm: “Anonymous_joe, you’re getting two issues confused. The real issue here is the memorial dedicated to the comfort women, not Dokdo/Takeshima. The question isn’t ‘has the rest of the world acknowledged Dokdo as Korea’s?’. It’s really ‘has the rest of the world acknowledged that comfort women were real?’. The answer is “yes”, but only outside of Japan.

    No, the real issue is Dokdo. The site just happened to be at the Comfort Women memorial.

  • cm

    #31, it will be a blessing in disguise if SK is forced to go to the ICJ. Korea will win in the court and put this case to the rest once and for all. Korea’s position is even backed by a number of Japanese historians.

  • cm

    #33, no you are quiet wrong here.

  • Q

    #34,

    “돌다리도 두들겨 보고 지나가라.”(Second thoughts are best.) It’s never be late to see what diplomatic mines the sneaky Japanese buried on the road to ICJ in the dispute with China and Russia.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    cm, is English your native language? You seem to use referents indiscriminately: #28 “Why is that?” and #35 “#33, no you are quiet wrong here” and then provide no other explanation.

    I don’t mean to be insulting, but when you write you should try to avoid ambiguity outside of poetry and puns.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Q, did you order Chinese take-out tonight and rip into a fistful of fortune cookies?

  • Q

    Japan’s official position on Senkaku island is that there is no such a thing like dispute over the islands. SK’s official position on Dokdo is the same. Let the sneaky dicky Japan stir the sh*t container first at ICJ over Senkaku. And then, wait to see how Japan have 똥줄탄다 with Russia over Kuril. The slowest is the winner in the game, bro.

  • cm

    #37, Japanese right wing groups who are already famous for its barrage of constant hate propaganda against Koreans (including their position that comfort women are frauds). By bringing up the Japanese territorial claim with a sign and putting it on a memorial dedicated to the Comfort women victims, they are attacking these victims because they are Koreans, and refuting the claims made by Korean comfort women. I shouldn’t even have to explain this to you, but I realize now not everyone thinks Japanese right wingers are a problem and blight to Japan.

  • cm

    #40, having said that, I don’t think this should be considered a hate crime that deserves getting arrested. It is hate, but should not considered a crime.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #40 cm: They left the same message verbatim at the Korean embassy in NYC.

    I stand by my statement that the comfort women memorial’s main contribution to this act was to provide a high profile site. The observation of a message left at the embassy does not support your hypothesis.

    The ends were Dokdo, the means the Comfort Women memorial. Not the other way around.

  • Q

    I agree it is too insufficient to call it a hate crime, it would be enough to call it Japanese arsehattery. As a speaker of English as a foreign language, it is hard for me to understand how one’s butt could be on top of one’s own head.

  • Q
  • Q

    Note that NARA(National Archives and Records Administration) has a report on Japanese and Koreans (http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/11/05/2012110502791.html):

    “일본인은 교활하고 뒤통수를 친다”

    “한국인은 아시아의 아일랜드인이다. 욱하는 성질이 있고 농담을 잘한다”

  • frogmouth

    As someone who supports Korea’s case for Dokdo Island I think the Takeshima posts are great!

    It puts the Japanese “academics” who lobby for Takeshima in the same camp as the right-wing nutbars who deny past wartime atrocities.

    In other words, whatever shred of credibility Takeshima lobbyists may have had is being dismantled by Japan’s right-wing lunatic fringe!

    What a huge P.R. clusterf**k..

    I love it!

  • jtyler79asia

    Sad. and jkitchstk can diaff.

  • JK

    Frogmouth, agreed! This could actually be a blessing in disguise. lol

  • slim

    “it is hard for me to understand how one’s butt could be on top of one’s own head.”

    1. Look in the mirror
    2. Review your posting history
    3. It will become as clear to you as it is to us

  • Q

    You are such a kind gentleman to elaborate the enigmatic word. I am sorry I could only say that “돼지 눈에는 돼지가 보이고, 부처 눈에는 부처만 보인다” (돈안지유돈 불안지유불, 豚眼只有豚 佛眼只有佛).

  • Bendrix

    A lot of acts in America are labeled hate crimes. From Wikipedia: “In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, or gender identity.”

    According to that definition, this was a hate crime if his intention was to offend comfort women. I’m sure he was aware that he’d be pissing off any remaining comfort women by placing this stake there. I’m also sure he has no respect for comfort women. He could as well have gone to the UN building in Manhattan. But he trekked out to New Jersey to do this, and also did it at another comfort woman statue in Korea. I think to these right wingers, all these international disputes with Korea are part and parcel of the same thing – fierce dislike of and sense of superiority over Koreans. It’s not just about land. It’s not just about veracity of historical accounts.

  • Stereo

    >“has the rest of the world acknowledged Dokdo as Korea’s?”

    Korean government and Korean Congress do not think Korea has clean title to Dog Do. Take a good look at this map.
    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E9%9F%93%E6%BC%81%E6%A5%AD%E5%8D%94%E5%AE%9A

    This is the map attached to Japan Korea Fishing Agreement. The large area around Takeshima is called “Temporal Joint Fishing Area”, where both Japan and Korea has the right of fishing. In other words both countries claim EEZ over the area and both countries recognized the other country’s EEZ as temporal measure because both countries recognized the other country’s claim over Takeshima.

    Japan Korea Fishing Agreement was signed by Foreign and Trade Secretary of Republic of Korea and ratified by Korean Congress in 1998 as well as in 1965. There is no clearer evidence that Takeshima is disputed island. The name of Foreign Secretary who signed the agreement is Hong Sun Yoeng. Call him traitor if you will.

  • Bendrix

    That’s about fishing rights in the waters around the island. You’re confusing two totally different issues.

  • Stereo

    >Bendrix November 7, 2012 at 6:19 am
    >According to that definition, this was a hate crime if his intention was to offend comfort women.

    How could a stake saying “Takeshima is Japanese territory.” could offend a comfort woma?

    The monument itself could be a hate crime, if the words written on it are not true. The burden of proof is on the Korean civic group. I do not think they can prove “more than 200,000 comfort women”.

  • Q

    How could a stake saying “Takeshima is Japanese territory.” could offend a comfort woma[n]?

    Because Dokdo represents the inception of Japanese colonial aggression to Korea; and the enforced Japanese sexual slavery represents culmination of colonialism of Japan.

    I do not think they can prove “more than 200,000 comfort women”.

    Read the comment #10, bro.

  • Bendrix

    I just realized this person spouts a lot of nonsense and is not even worth engaging. Hey, you could call this Korean document about Japanese imperialism a hate crime because it details how many kilos of squid each country is allowed to obtain in the waters around Guam.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    The monument itself could be a hate crime, if the words written on it are not true.

    I have met a LOT of Japanese right-wing nutjobs, but this comment might just take the cake.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Stereo wrote (#54):

    The monument itself could be a hate crime, if the words written on it are not true. The burden of proof is on the Korean civic group. I do not think they can prove “more than 200,000 comfort women”.

    Not only does the monument say there were “more than 200,000 comfort women,” it says they were all “abducted,” which is just ridiculous.

  • Q

    I’d be sorry to post this again. It is difficult to obtain exact number of victims of enforced sex slaves due to Japanese government’s “restriction on relevant documentation.” Toshiyuki Tanaka’s research Japan’s Comfort Women (Asia’s Transformations) says:

    At this time, however, it is quite difficult to conduct thorough research on this issue, mainly due to restrictions on access to relevant documentation:

    * Firstly, many official military documents are still classified and not open for public inspection — for example, several thousand volumes of Gyomu Nisshi (Records of Military Plans and Operations) and Jagun Nisshi (Field Diaries) housed in the Research Library of the Japanese Defense Agency.

    * Secondly, all documents prepared by the Japanese Police during the Asia-Pacific War are still closed.

    * Thirdly, it is believed that many relevant documents were prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Colonial Affairs, both of which had major responsibilities for colonial Korea and Taiwan. (From 1942, the Ministry of Home Affairs replaced the Ministry of Colonial Affairs in charge of administration of Taiwanese affairs.) However, none of these official records has so far been released.

    * Finally, it is also believed that Japanese government ministries — the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Public Welfare and the Ministry of Justice — still retain considerable numbers of relevant documents, but these are not accessible to researchers. The fact that there is no Freedom of Information Act in Japan makes it difficult to change the present research condition.

    In addition, many people who were directly involved in setting up and implementing the comfort women system are still alive, but they remain silent on this issue.

    More reading: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/06/16/open-thread-247-the-normal-weekend-edition/#comment-466296.

    However, Tanaka does suggest some numbers in his book:

    The comfort women were treated as “military supplies,” but relevant document were either hidden or destroyed at the end of the war. It is impossible to know, therefore, how many women were exploited. The best estimates range from 80,000 to 100,000. According to the Japanese military plan devised in July 1941, 20,000 comfort women were required for every 800,000 Japanese soldiers, or one woman for every 40 soldiers (This estimate is based upon a report that the Kuwantung Army of 800,000 men planned to mobilize 20,000 Korean comfort women during the so-called “Kuwantung Army Special Maneuvres” in July 1941). There were 3.5 million Japanese soldiers sent to China and Southeast Asia during the war, and therefore, by this calculation, an estimated 90,000 women were mobilized. Of these women 80 percent are believed to have been Koreans, but many also came from Taiwan, China, the Philppines, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

    Why were comfort women almost invariably from Taiwan, China, or various places in Southeast Asia, and above all Korea? This might seem odd at first, given that the Japanese were notorious for their racism towards the people of other Asian countries. However, racial prejudice provides part of the answer to the question – that very racism helped make these women suitable for the role of comfort women. Japanese prostitutes did serve the military abroad during the war, but most were in a different position from the comfort women. The Japanese prostitutes mainly worked in comfort stations that served high-ranking officers, and they experienced better conditions than the Asian comfort women. Apart from the difficulty in recruiting Japanese women into comfort stations, Japanese military leaders did not believe Japanese women should be in that role. Their mission was to bear and bring up good Japanese children, who would grow up to be loyal subjects of the Emperor rather than being the means for men to satisfy their sexual urges. The Japanese wartime government took its lead from Nazi eugenic ideology and policy in these matters. In 1940 the National Eugenic Law was proclaimed. The purposes of the law were to prevent miscegenation and the reproduction of the “unfit,” such as those with mental illness that was believed to be inherited.

    More reading: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/06/20/comfort-women-memorial-the-long-island-edition/#comment-466865

    Tanaka’s research also provided other numbers:

    Mobilization of the Korean labor force into war-related industries was greatly strengthened from 1943. In 1943 alone, nearly 140,000 people were mobilized by the Government-General (Yoshimi Yoshiaki, Jugun Ianfu, p.100). In September 1943, the “Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Corps” was organized throughout Korea. Through the corps many young, unmarried women were forced to “volunteer” for various types of work in wartime industries. In August 1944, a new law – the “Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Law” – was enacted. This allowed the Governor-General of Korea to force any unmarried woman between 12 and 40 years to engage in war-related labor for 12 months. Under this law a vast number of young girls were mobilized and many were sent to Japan to work at large industrial factories. This policy probably created the situation in which procurement of young Korea women for military comfort stations became difficult. As a result, it seems that the power of the police force was abused by the military authorities for the purpose of securing comfort women. According to testimonies of former comfort women, it appears that some representatives of the local Neighborhood Association, an organization that the Government-General required local civilians to establish, were also forced to act on behalf of owners/managers of comfort stations or their sub-contractors.

    Some girls accepted offers of “employment” by labor brokers, or through the mediation of leaders of the local Neighborhood Association, in order to avoid being drafted into the Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Corps. Ch’oe Myungsun was one of them. In January 1945, when she was 19 years old, she accepted an introduction by a representative of the Neighborhood Association to a “good job” in Japan. She was sent to Hiroshima to become a mistress of Japanese military officer for a couple of months. Then she was taken into a comfort station in Osaka, where she was forced to serve the Japanese soldiers until shortly before the end of the war.

    It was shortly after August 1944, when the Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Law was enacted, that a rumor spread in Korea that all unmarried girls over 14 years old would be forced to become comfort women. Many middle- and upper-class Korean families withdrew their daughters from women’s colleges and hurriedly arranged marriages for them to avoid their being drafted. However, some families in lower social strata felt trapped.

    More reading: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/06/20/comfort-women-memorial-the-long-island-edition/#comment-466861

    Tanaka estimated 80,000 to 100,000 enforced sex slaves, which were calculated based only on the sex slave supply plan of 1941 for Japanese Imperial army in China and Southeast Asia. If we count women like Ch’oe Myungsun who were initially drafted for Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Corps and later enforced to be sex slaves, hidden or destroyed document’s number of women, and enforced sex slaves of other nationalities — such as China, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, and Netherlands — the number could be estimated to reach 200,000 or more.

  • jk641

    ab·duct
    verb
    1. to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force

  • tinyflowers

    If someone put a banner in the Jewish Holocaust memorial saying “Israel belongs to Palestine”, should it be considered a hate crime?

    That would almost certainly be prosecuted as a hate crime. The defacing of the comfort women memorial should also be treated as such, if the law is to be applied consistently. In any case, Japanese right-wingers have reached a new low in defacing a monument in another country to spread their message of hate. Seriously, defacing a comfort women memorial? Who does that? Very low indeed, but not altogether surprising considering who we’re dealing with here.

  • Stereo

    >Bendrix November 7, 2012 at 6:36 am

    The only reason we have this “Temporal Joint Fishing Area” around Takeshima is that it is a disputed island. Koreans, if you want the sea area around Takeshima, go to ICJ.

    >Q November 7, 2012 at 7:16 am
    >the number could be estimated to reach 200,000 or more.

    If all you can say is “could be”, you really cannot defend yourself against defamation charges.

    >tinyflowers November 7, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    If expressing “Takeshima is Japanese territory.” were to be a hate crime, expressing “Dog do uri dang.” would be a hate crime, too.

  • Q

    Stereo,

    Could you give to Holers the most authoritative scholarly papers (in English) that could support Japan’s claim on Dokdo?

  • Bendrix

    62

    I would agree with you if the Korean nationalist intentionally placed a stake at a historically sensitive site, like at the peace museum in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Would a Japanese person even dream of placing a political message like this – say “US military out of Okinawa” – at Pearl Harbor? Hell no.

  • tinyflowers

    If expressing “Takeshima is Japanese territory.” were to be a hate crime, expressing “Dog do uri dang.” would be a hate crime, too.

    It’s not really the message itself it’s the context that makes it a hateful act. As Bendrix already mentioned, if a Korean nationalist placed a stake with the words “Dokdo is Korean” at the Hiroshima museum, it could be considered a hate crime (not familiar with Japanese law on the matter). Same with a “Israel belongs to Palestine” message at a holocaust memorial.

    But those things have not happened. Let’s deal with reality shall we? What we have here is a Japanese right-wing group defacing monuments in another country to spread a message of hate. Truly beyond the pale and a new low for Japanese nationalists. It’s crazy to think that there are people on here actually defending this act. Have they no shame?

  • CactusMcHarris

    #65,

    Great post!

    You want to put a stick somewhere, put it in front of the Blue House (and the Japanese PM’s official house), the White House, or the outhouse, but not at a memorial for ones who endured the unendurable, whatever their race / nationality was.

  • Stereo

    >Bendrix November 8, 2012 at 1:31 am #64
    >Would a Japanese person even dream of placing a political message like this – say “US military out of Okinawa” – at Pearl Harbor? Hell no.

    If a Japanese posts that message in otherwise legal manor such as renting ad space, do you call it a “crime”? It is a bad taste but a crime? If the answer is yes, you are no better than Islam fundamentalists.

  • Bendrix

    No, I wouldn’t call it a crime if it was in a newspaper. I specifically said it’s the placement that makes it one. And I was also implying that a Japanese would never dare offend the US that way but Korea is open game. I would call fundamentalism applying rules arbitrarily and differently to different people. That’s not what I’m saying. A Korean should not place a stake like that at a politically sensitive site and a Japanese shouldn’t either. Seems pretty fair to me.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    65 tinyflowers: “What we have here is a Japanese right-wing group defacing monuments in another country to spread a message of hate. Truly beyond the pale and a new low for Japanese nationalists. It’s crazy to think that there are people on here actually defending this act. Have they no shame?”

    No one is defending the act, and everyone here has condemned the act.

    You are conflating two concepts. Some have posted that they did not think the act (as distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly, …. as the act was) constituted a crime or hate crime by governing law. Distasteful, shameful, cowardly acts are not necessarily criminal; they are just distasteful, shameful, and cowardly.

    Many have posted that the act does not even constitute defacing, vandalism, or criminal mischief. Basing on my understanding of the definitions, I agree.

  • Bendrix

    You don’t think it even counts as vandalism? You are a very lenient person.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #70 Bendrix “You don’t think it even counts as vandalism? You are a very lenient person.”

    No, just someone who read the definition of vandalism.

  • tinyflowers

    No one is defending the act, and everyone here has condemned the act.

    Bullshit. You’re changing your tune. You certainly did not condemn the act earlier. In fact you were praising it, saying it was a “brilliant bit”, “aesthetically very attractive” and has “paid for itself”

    Does that sound like someone who is condemning the act?

  • Q

    I would like to return to Joe his own statement:

    Your dishonesty diminishes what little was left of your credibility.

    :)

  • cinguettio

    How could the Japanese military “abduct” more than 200,000 women and girls when village mayors, town mayors, and military policemen (MPs, kempeis) were all Koreans in Korea during the Annexation Period? 40% of prefectural governors were Koreans. There were Korean members of the House of Representatives, and many Korean members of the House of Lords. There were many Korean Earls and Marquess, Counts and Countesses. During the Annexation period, 李垠 Prince Yi Un of Korea was placed above the Crown Prince of Japan. Prince Yi Un’s rank came next to the mperor of Japan. Under these circumstances, and evidences how on earth could the Japanese military“abduct” more than 200,000 women and girls.

  • cinguettio

    missed “E” there. I meant to write, Prince Yi Un’s rank came next to the Emperor of Japan.

  • Arghaeri

    Tinyfluttters,

    Keep practising the deliberate misquoting and not so deliberate poor comprehension skills.

    He said the stake was aesthetically attractive, and this was stated in the context of whether or not the placing of same legally constituted vandalism. He dud not comment nor infer that he condoned the act either legally or morally.

    Similarly, he did not condone the act as a “brilliant bit”, he commented factually that it was a “brilliant bit of bait”, i.e. in a politicizing/publicizing and raise awareness of his agenda way, which it clearly was since it caught you and many others. Admiring the brilliance of an act is not the same as condoning that act. The German invasion of Poland for example was a brilliantly execute piece of warfare, however I most certainly do not condone it.

  • tinyflowers

    Arg, it is you who need to work on your comprehension skills. I never claimed anyone condoned the act. You just made that up. I merely said Joe “certainly did not condemn the act earlier” and he didn’t. It’s a statement of fact.

    Also, he said the stake was “aesthetically very attractive” and a “brilliant bit of bait”. So yeah, he did praise it. This is also a statement of fact.

    Remember his claim was that “everyone here has condemned the act”. Do you see any truth to that? Can you show me where Joe condemns the act? (I mean before he abruptly changed his tune). Can you show me where Japanese apologist Stereo condemns the act? What about gbevers? It was a blatant lie and I called bullshit on it. I’m not quite sure what your point is though.

  • tinyflowers

    Arg, it is you who need to work on your comprehension skills. I never claimed anyone condoned the act. You just made that up. I merely said Joe “certainly did not condemn the act earlier” and he didn’t. It’s a statement of fact.

    Also, he said the stake was “aesthetically very attractive” and a “brilliant bit of bait”. So yeah, he did praise it. This is also a statement of fact.

    Remember his claim was that “everyone here has condemned the act”. Do you see any truth to that? Can you show me where Joe condemns the act? (I mean before he abruptly changed his tune). Can you show me where Japanese apologist Stereo condemns the act? What about gbevers? It was a blatant lie and I called bullshit on it. I’m not quite sure what your point is though.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #72 tinyflowers: “No one is defending the act, and everyone here has condemned the act.

    Bullshit. You’re changing your tune. You certainly did not condemn the act earlier. In fact you were praising it, saying it was a “brilliant bit”, “aesthetically very attractive” and has “paid for itself”

    Does that sound like someone who is condemning the act?

    Mr. tinyflowers, either post the entirety of my posts when you comment or be prepared if my identity is ever revealed and my reputations suffers because of your misrepresentations.

    #20 Anonymous_Joe November 6, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    #15 Q: “SK is too busy to bring Japanese asshats to ICJ. Let them fail by themselves.”

    Part of me thinks that you actually believe that, while no part of you can conceive how weak that line sounds to anyone who is not Korean.

    #16 yuna: “Would like to see the stick before I make any judgment.”

    The stake is aesthetically very attractive. Google the story for a pic.

    I think neither of your sides provide an accurate assessment. The stake is more than a wink, wink, nudge, nudge cartoonish calling card and less than an instrument to impale the anti-Christ.

    The stake was a brilliant bit of bait that the Korean community swallowed hook, line, and sinker. He raised awareness for Japanese and others that a counter-claim exists. He did so by propinquity that no one outside of Koreans is going to view as malicious vandalism, and he will start people to question, “why doesn’t Korea go to the ICJ.” He won’t be charged let alone convicted of anything, and the whole thing cost him $20.

    Korea is fighting a long, slow losing battle if it thinks that “SK is too busy,” “the evidence is so obvious,” and “there is no dispute” to bother to go to the ICJ. The stake introduced the idea of dispute.

    IP addresses are cached, and although I am litigious by nature, I really don’t need a litigious nature in Korea, on a blog hosted in Korea, with Korean citizens or persons physically in Korea. Do you understand what I’m saying?

    In fact, why don’t we discuss these posts with Mr. Koehler? I understand that he has a relationship with Attorneys Carr and theKorean. I will ask them whether they foresee a possibility that my personal or professional reputation could be damaged because this blog publishes your repeated misrepresentations.

  • tinyflowers

    Where’s the misrepresentation?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #74 Arghaeri November 10, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    Tinyfluttters,

    Keep practising the deliberate misquoting and not so deliberate poor comprehension skills.

    I read your post after having posted #77. Thank you for independently confirming what I found egregiously obvious.

  • tinyflowers

    Where’s the misrepresentation?

  • tinyflowers

    If you feel your reputation has been damaged (and believe me, it has), it’s only because you’ve shown yourself to be a racist asshat and because I’ve exposed your lies and intellectual dishonesty.

  • Arghaeri

    No one is defending the act, and everyone here has condemned the act.

    Bullshit. You’re changing your tune. You certainly did not condemn the act earlier. In fact you were praising it, saying it was a “brilliant bit”, “aesthetically very attractive” and has “paid for itself”

    Arg, it is you who need to work on your comprehension skills. I never claimed anyone condoned the act. You just made that up. I merely said Joe “certainly did not condemn the act earlier” and he didn’t. It’s a statement of fact.

    You not only misquoted, but misquoted out of context, stating he had not condemned the act itself but had in fact praised the act. in doing so you clearly inferred that he had condoned the act

  • Arghaeri

    premature..posting…

    When in fact the “praise” when placed in context was clearly in relation to its strategic effect not in relation to condonation of the act as you inferred.

    If you as you now claim there was no fault in your comprehension, then you are clearly admitting that you deliberately “spun” his words to misrepresent him.

  • Arghaeri

    BTW Tinyflutters, AnonJoe may or may not be a racist, but I curious as to how you draw that conclusion based on his comments here. Is it merely that he is not in agreement with you?

  • Arghaeri

    Remember his claim was that “everyone here has condemned the act”. Do you see any truth to that? Can you show me where Joe condemns the act? (I mean before he abruptly changed his tune).

    No, but then I don’t see how such a lack entitles you to misrepresent that he has actively condoned the act.

  • PineForest

    While I realize that this is just the latest in wave after wave of immigrants bringing their old world grudges to the USA, I disapprove of it. I wish the statue weren’t there, because the US doesn’t need or (especially) deserve to be in the middle of this.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #69 Anonymous_Joe: “No one is defending the act(bold, sic), and everyone here has condemned the act.

    You are conflating two concepts. Some have posted that they did not think the act (as distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly, …. as the act was) constituted a crime or hate crime by governing law. Distasteful, shameful, cowardly acts are not necessarily criminal; they are just distasteful, shameful, and cowardly.

    When I described “the act” as “distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly, …. “, I believe I made a strong condemnation. If you want to be syllogistic and parse more words, then when I wrote “no one is defending the act, and everyone here has condemned the act,
    1) I am part of everyone here.
    2) Everyone here has condemned the act
    3) Ergo, I have condemned the act.

    At this point retractions and online apologies aren’t enough to unring the bell that has been rung. (I think any law school graduate understands the reference. Why don’t you go ask one?)

  • tinyflowers

    stating he had not condemned the act itself but had in fact praised the act

    And which of those two statements were not factual?

    in doing so you clearly inferred that he had condoned the act

    How so? Failing to condemn an act and praising the brilliance of it is not the same as condoning that act, as you yourself argued in #76. It was you who (incorrectly) inferred that I was quoting him to show that he was condoning the act, even though I clearly explained the context of the quotes in my post.

  • tinyflowers

    As an aside, it can be argued that when someone heaps praise on an act (a potential hate crime), as aesthetically pleasing, a brilliant bit of bait, or whatever the context of the praise, he is in fact in support of it at some level. This is not a huge leap to make. Especially if this person also fails to condemn the act or offer any qualifiers to his praise.

  • Arghaeri

    stating he had not condemned the act itself but had in fact praised the act

    And which of those two statements were not factual?

    The second as has already been explained, he did not “praise” the carrying out of the act itself, he merely commented that it was a “brilliant bit of bait”.

    You seem to like relying on being “factual” and yet cannot accept his factual statement that it was a “brilliant bit of bait”, when all the evidence shows it clearly was :roll:

  • Arghaeri

    How so? Failing to condemn an act and praising the brilliance of it is not the same as condoning that act, as you yourself argued in #76.

    Nope, I stated that

    Similarly, he did not condone the act as a “brilliant bit”, he commented factually that it was a “brilliant bit of bait”,

    i.e recognising the “brilliance of the act” in terms if its effect or execution is not the same as praising the carrying out of the act in the first instance.

    “How so?”, covered this already too, yawn!
    By deliberating misquoting out of context you have inferred that he was praising the carrying out of the act itself, i.e in support of it, i.e condoning it, rather than merely recognising the fact of its impact as a “brilliant piece of bait”.

    It was you who (incorrectly) inferred that I was quoting him to show that he was condoning the act

    Incorrectly, are you having a laugh, you say
    “bullshit you didn’t condemn the act, in fact you praised the act” (abridged), and simultaneously claim you weren’t inferring he condoned it :roll:

    It was you who (incorrectly) inferred that I was quoting him to show that he was condoning the act, even though I clearly explained the context of the quotes in my post.

  • Arghaeri

    How so? Failing to condemn an act and praising the brilliance of it is not the same as condoning that act, as you yourself argued in #76.

    Nope, I stated that

    Similarly, he did not condone the act as a “brilliant bit”, he commented factually that it was a “brilliant bit of bait”,

    i.e recognising the “brilliance of the act” in terms if its effect or execution is not the same as praising the carrying out of the act in the first instance.

    “How so?”, covered this already too, yawn!
    By deliberating misquoting out of context you have inferred that he was praising the carrying out of the act itself, i.e in support of it, i.e condoning it, rather than merely recognising the fact of its impact as a “brilliant piece of bait”.

    It was you who (incorrectly) inferred that I was quoting him to show that he was condoning the act

    Incorrectly, are you having a laugh, you say
    “bullshit you didn’t condemn the act, in fact you praised the act” (abridged), and simultaneously claim you weren’t inferring he condoned it :roll:

    This is not a huge leap to make. Especially if this person also fails to condemn the act or offer any qualifiers to his praise.

    Not a huge leap, to infer such in the absence of evidence to the contrary, if there were no context or qualifiers, except for the rather obvious fact fact there were, but you deliberately omitted them!!!

    It is, however a rather gigantic leap to make following the statement, “No one is defending the act” highlighted in bold no less!!! LOL :roll:

    Not a huge leap,

    It was you who (incorrectly) inferred that I was quoting him to show that he was condoning the act, even though I clearly explained the context of the quotes in my post.

  • Arghaeri

    Sperwered,

    It was you who (incorrectly) inferred that I was quoting him to show that he was condoning the act

    Incorrectly, are you having a laugh, you say
    “bullshit you didn’t condemn the act, in fact you praised the act” (abridged), and simultaneously claim you weren’t inferring he condoned it :roll:

    This is not a huge leap to make. Especially if this person also fails to condemn the act or offer any qualifiers to his praise.

    Not a huge leap, to infer such in the absence of evidence to the contrary, if there were no context or qualifiers, except for the rather obvious fact fact there were, but you deliberately omitted them!!!

    It is, however a rather gigantic leap to make following the statement, “No one is defending the act” highlighted in bold no less!!! LOL

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #91 tinyflowers: “As an aside, it can be argued that when someone heaps praise on an act (a potential hate crime), as aesthetically pleasing, a brilliant bit of bait, or whatever the context of the praise, he is in fact in support of it at some level. This is not a huge leap to make. Especially if this person also fails to condemn the act or offer any qualifiers to his praise.”

    Another brilliant bit of misrepresentation. There! Do you think that I am in any way condoning or supporting tinyflowers’s potentially libelous and malicious attacks on me? What is not a huge leap to make is that in a moderated forum, tinyflowers’s attacks pass the moderators.

    This blog is hosted in Korea, a country that has a history of overzealous netizens taking action. I privately hold a heretical to the Korean orthodoxy idea: If Korea’s case for its claim to Dokdo is so strong as to be indisputable, then Korea should present its case before the ICJ. Netizens’ whose posts I have read and Koreans’ various reasons I have heard for Korea not making its argument to the ICJ sound weak to western ears.

    I have appended to several of my posts the following in its full or as below its abbreviated, referential form (see @11):

    …I don’t know why I have to always end these with “I hope Korea wins its Dokdo claim…“, but I have feelings of peril if I don’t.”

    As my posts await moderation, I note that this is a moderated blog. In this thread, some posters and one poster in particular have been permitted to savage me and my reputation with quotations taken out of context, misrepresentations of my statements, misattributions, omissions, and statements contrary to fact. These posts pass moderation, while mine, which to the best of my understanding contain no such intellectual or other dishonesty, don’t.

  • tinyflowers

    Incorrectly, are you having a laugh, you say
    “bullshit you didn’t condemn the act, in fact you praised the act” (abridged), and simultaneously claim you weren’t inferring he condoned it

    Arg, how could that have been inferred when you said yourself that praising the brilliance of an act is not the same as condoning it? You want to make a distinction between the praising of an act and condoning it but I can’t make that same distinction? You can’t have it both ways.

    It is, however a rather gigantic leap to make following the statement, “No one is defending the act”

    A statement he somehow left out at the time he was heaping praise on it, which is why I said he changed his tune. He went from describing the act as a “brilliant piece of bait” and “aesthetically very attractive” to describing it as “distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly”. Now, I’m sure you’ll argue that those are logically consistent positions, that poor old Joe is just being misundertood and misquoted. But I can’t read his mind like you apparently can, so I just call it like I see it and that’s a flip-flop and a morally repugnant one at that.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    I condemn the inscription on the monument. It is a lie designed to vilify the Japanese, which is the main purpose of the monument.

    How many on this blog have condemned the monument?

  • Arghaeri

    Arg, how could that have been inferred when you said yourself that praising the brilliance of an act is not the same as condoning it? You want to make a distinction between the praising of an act and condoning it but I can’t make that same distinction? You can’t have it both ways.

    See your comprehension skills are completely fucked, completely explained the difference between the carrying out of the act itself and admiring it as a strategy, the difference being clear from the context you deliberately omit- twice at least.

    If you can’t understand the difference, theres no point continuing with you.

  • Arghaeri

    A statement he somehow left out at the time he was heaping praise on it, which is why I said he changed his tune.

    And proceeded to deliberately misquote out of context to misrepresent to your agenda.

    Now, I’m sure you’ll argue that those are logically consistent positions,

    Indeed they are, when the surrounding contxt to such remarks is not deliberately omitted, your limitations in comprehension, are fortunately, howver not my problem, so goodbye.

    But I can’t read his mind like you apparently can, so I just call it like I see it and that’s a flip-flop and a morally repugnant one at that.

    Strange, and there was me simply reading his words. I must use the same skill on you, ah yes I am reading your mind now, oh no hold on a moment nothing there signals too weak.

    So you’ll make a leap of faith and call it how you want to see it, and while you’re at it you’ll misquote and misrepresent to try to make others see it hiw you want to too!!! Brilliant.

    I don’t like what this guy said sio I’ll twist and spin it a little, do you work for the republican tea partiers/ birthers perchance?

  • tinyflowers

    completely explained the difference between the carrying out of the act itself and admiring it as a strategy, the difference being clear from the context you deliberately omit- twice at least.

    Arg, you’re wanting it both ways again. If the difference is so clear, why would you think that me quoting him praising the act is the same me accusing him of condoning it? They are two different things, remember? I never said that he condoned the act. Read the actual words I wrote, not what you incorrectly inferred from them.

    You realize how silly you sound when you continually insult my comprehension skills when your entire rant against me is based on your misreading of my post. And why the personal insults? I never once insulted you, as I have a bit more respect for you than some others around here. You simply made an error in reading my post.

    proceeded to deliberately misquote out of context to misrepresent to your agenda.

    What agenda would that be? And how did I misrepresent Joe’s position when I specfically stated “you were praising it” and then proceeded to quote him praising it? Are you saying that in fact he did NOT praise the act? but I just made it seem like he did? Specfically what is being misrepresented?

  • Arghaeri

    They are two different things, remember?

    No they are not.

    Do we really have to go through this a third time. Praising Hitler for the act of invading poland is condoning that act. Praising, the battle strategy i.e. used by Hitler in his succesful attack on Poland, in no way reflects on the morality or legality of the actual act iff invading Poland, and therefore does not condone the invasion.

    AnonJoe, noted the act was strategically a “brilliant piece of bait” which it clearly was, he did not expressly condone the act if “vandalism” itself.

    Tou howver deliberately misquoted to give the impression he had praised the act of “vandalism” itself, thereby inferring he condoned it, despite his already having clarified that he did not condone it.

    Accordingly, I have misread nothing you clearly stated he praised the act in and of itself. I apologise if you feel I have insulted you, however you clearly do not comprehend what you yourself have stated and inferred.

    What agenda would that be? And how did I misrepresent Joe’s position when I specfically stated “you were praising it” and then proceeded to quote him praising it? Are you saying that in fact he did NOT praise the act? but I just made it seem like he did?

    Yes, see above.
    He did not praise the act of vandalism, but you made it seem so.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Arg, I appreciate your making the obvious but oh,-so-needed argument for me. The mods put me in the time out room for 24 hours. You have no idea how much I appreciate your standing up for intellectual honesty. I particularly appreciate your standing up for me while you were unaware that I was unable to do so for myself.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Normally, his sophistry (and the term connotes way too much praise for his posts) would be easily dismissed with a swift rebuttal. The problem is that in Korea not holding to Korean orthodoxy can result in loss of job, physical harm, or deportation. Swift rebuttal or allowing the buffoonery to stand on its own is not enough. Netizens and media have been known not only to cherry pick raisins out of an apple orchard, but then stew them into hasty pudding for mass consumption.

    Netizens often weak in the their arguments and reasoning result to personal attacks and distortions. Who among us hasn’t seen first hand or heard of the friend of a friend who had his visa blocked or his employment terminated because of writing an obviously satirical post, hosting an obviously satirical website, or posting items for consideration?

    Would any of us ostracize the Bro simply because he puts forth some comical beliefs against all reason whether he believes them or wants others to consider the possibility? Now do any of us truly feel safe in debating even for the devil’s advocate position that if Korea’s claim to Dokdo is so strong as to be indisputable, then why doesn’t Korea take the claim to the ICJ?

    Any answer for the devil’s advocate position other than “Korea’s claim is indisputable” gets countered with anger, epithets, and threats.

  • tinyflowers

    AnonJoe, noted the act was strategically a “brilliant piece of bait” which it clearly was, he did not expressly condone the act if “vandalism” itself.

    Where did I state that he condoned it? Direct quotes please, not your interpretation.

    You are being a bit hypocritical here. On one hand, you read Joe’s comments literally and infer no meaning beyond exactly what is written. On the other hand, you read my comments and instead of taking them at face value, you insist that I was accusing him of condoning the act, when I said no such thing.

    Re-read my comment. I stated that he had changed his tune, that far from condemning the act, he had actually offered praise for it. Then I proceeded to quote him praising the stake. Where is the misrepresentation?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #69 Anonymous_Joe:

    #65 tinyflowers: “What we have here is a Japanese right-wing group defacing monuments in another country to spread a message of hate. Truly beyond the pale and a new low for Japanese nationalists. It’s crazy to think that there are people on here actually defending this act. Have they no shame?”

    No one is defending the act, and everyone here has condemned the act.

    You are conflating two concepts. Some have posted that they did not think the act (as distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly, …. as the act was) constituted a crime or hate crime by governing law. <b?Distasteful, shameful, cowardly acts are not necessarily criminal; they are just distasteful, shameful, and cowardly.

    That’s strong condemnation.

    #72 tinyflowers:

    No one is defending the act, and everyone here has condemned the act.

    Bullshit. You’re changing your tune. You certainly did not condemn the act earlier. In fact you were praising it, saying it was a “brilliant bit”, “aesthetically very attractive” and has “paid for itself”

    Does that sound like someone who is condemning the act?

    Your intentional misrepresenting my statements and quoting out of context sound like someone who is intentionally intellectually dishonest and libeling me.

    #105 tinyflowers:

    AnonJoe, noted the act was strategically a “brilliant piece of bait” which it clearly was, he did not expressly condone the act if “vandalism” itself.

    Where did I state that he condoned it? Direct quotes please, not your interpretation.

    You are not stating my position; you are only misstating it.

    #77 tinyflowers : I merely said Joe “certainly did not condemn the act earlier” and he didn’t. It’s a statement of fact.

    Also, he said the stake was “aesthetically very attractive” and a “brilliant bit of bait”. So yeah, he did praise it. This is also a statement of fact.

    Is referring to the act as “distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly, ….” considered condemning the act?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    tinyflowers, I’ve looked over your posts, and I don’t see in any of your posts where you state “I condemn the act.” In fact, I don’t see anywhere in your posts where you even hint> or imply that you condemn the act.

    I’ve used strong words of condemnation in my descriptions of the act itself in the context as an affront to the memory of the comfort women. I don’t see anywhere that you’ve done even the equivalent of putting a flag pin on your lapel.

    Where’s your condemnation? Show us the post.

  • tinyflowers

    Is referring to the act as “distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly, ….” considered condemning the act?

    Yes. You did condemn the act. However, if you read carefully, you will note that I actually wrote “You certainly did not condemn the act earlier” which is a statement of fact. Did you honestly miss that word or are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said?

    I’ve looked over your posts, and I don’t see in any of your posts where you state “I condemn the act.” In fact, I don’t see anywhere in your posts where you even hint> or imply that you condemn the act.

    Riiiight. Calling it a hate crime that’s “beyond the pale” and “a new low for Japanese nationalists” doesn’t even hint or imply that I condemn the act. You on the other hand, had nothing but praise for it until you abruptly changed your tune.

    Joe, you’ve repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting your position. Can you be more specific? Which of my statements about you are false? Direct quotes please. This is the third time I’m asking you because you have a habit dodging direct questions.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    tinyflowers, stop trying chat board lawyer things. Your position is weak. If you need me to answer earlier, then earlier then what? 1963?

    Yes, prior to 1963 I am not on record as condemning the act.

    You need to take a cold shower, put it back in your pants, and find some other way to relieve yourself.

  • tinyflowers

    Joe, it’s not that hard to figure out. Here’s the quote “You’re changing your tune. You certainly did not condemn the act earlier.” You did not condemn the act before your change of tune, obviously. Was that so hard to understand?

  • tinyflowers

    Joe, I’ve noticed that you once again failed to deliver so I’ll ask again: Where is this misrepresentation you keep talking about? Which of my statements about you are false? If it’s so “egregiously obvious” as you stated, you should have no trouble coming up with quotes and examples. It’s kind of hard to take your laughable threats of legal action seriously when you’re having so much trouble making a case for yourself here.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #110 tinyflowers: “Joe, it’s not that hard to figure out. Here’s the quote “You’re changing your tune. You certainly did not condemn the act earlier.” You did not condemn the act before your change of tune, obviously. Was that so hard to understand?

    Your sophistry isn’t even junior grade. What was the tune? Condemn the act earlier than when I allegedly changed what tune?

    This is wearing thin. I doubt that I will play your game much if any longer except to note that you agreed that my reputation has been damaged. Throughout this thread I have held the same position and opinion.

    Unlike some other posters, I will not suffer an online stalker.

    Which of my statements about you are false?

    Are you the same tinyflowers who made the following post?

    #83 tinyflowers November 10, 2012 at 8:57 pm:
    If you feel your reputation has been damaged (and believe me, it has), it’s only because you’ve shown yourself to be a racist asshat and because I’ve exposed your lies and intellectual dishonesty.

    You will need to defend that post.

    1) Where’s the support for the racist epithet?
    2) Enumerate, post, and reference the lies
    3) Enumerate, post, and reference the intellectual dishonesty.

    It’s kind of hard to take your laughable threats of legal action seriously when you’re having so much trouble making a case for yourself here.

    Maybe, but the Rubicon runs right through here. If I press charges, my identity will be revealed to the Netizens. In a country with a history of overzealous netizenry something could very possibly happen to my family or me or my professional or personal reputations could suffer because of immoderate behavior. I see the risk as more certain than Korea losing its claim at the ICJ.

    But why would anyone (as in any one party to this situation) risk it?

    Mr. Koehler, I would like to have that discussion about terms of service and users’ agreement. I will abide by your terms of service and users agreement subject to law of applicable jurisdictions.

  • hamel

    What did I miss here? Is an anonymous person on a blog really talking about pressing charges in a matter concerning his or her (or its) reputation in real life?

    Is this really happening?

    [genuinely confused. wanting to defuse the situation]

    Mr. Anonymous, have you ever heard the analogy comparing having an argument on the internet and the Special Olympics?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Mr. Hamel,

    First, I find the quip about the Special Olympics rude, particularly with the understanding we have today.

    Second, I very much agree with you about the argument and letting go. The problem is with the nature of certain arguments in Korea. Some topics and charges if gone unchecked are particularly dangerous to the foreign community. I have no problem with discussing ideas. I have the problem with someone imputing false positions into those ideas.

    Third, we can all shut down any board or any discussion by derailing the discussions into ad hominems and non sequiters. I think that I can type as fast as anyone, and I can spam a board as fast as the next netizen. Do you want your discussion boards to devolve into shouting and name calling?

    Fourth, there is a difference between CNN’s or Yahoo’s message boards where most posters are interlopers. We have more of a sense of community, and some of us know each other outside our anonymous signatures.

    Fifth, CNN’s and Yahoo’s message boards are in the U.S., under American laws, and with American culture. If Americans have a disagreement about whether the U.S. was the aggressor in WWII, the U.S.’s use of atomic weapons in WWII amounts to war crimes, or the U.S. should return the Gadsen purchase to the Gadsens, Americans don’t care and do not feel threats to their livelihoods or positions in the U.S.

    As I said, I will abide by the terms of service and users agreement subject to governing jurisdictions. I just want to be clear what they are.

  • tinyflowers

    What was the tune? Condemn the act earlier than when I allegedly changed what tune?

    The part where you went from saying it was a “brilliant bit of bait” and “aesthetically very attractive” to saying it was “distasteful, shameful, pusillanimous, heinous, cowardly”

    I will not suffer an online stalker

    Stalker? I never replied to you, mentioned you or referred to you in this thread until you addressed me directly in post #69. This is but one example of your lies and intellectual dishonesty.

    1) Where’s the support for the racist epithet?
    2) Enumerate, post, and reference the lies
    3) Enumerate, post, and reference the intellectual dishonesty.

    For 2 and 3, see above. As for the racist epithet. That is my honest opinion of you based on things you’ve written in various threads. For example you wrote:

    “we laugh at Koreans lack of reading comprehension and logic skills”

    “we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces”

    There’s more but that alone speaks volumes about who you are as a person. Remember, this is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

    Now since I’ve answered your questions, you will answer mine. You’ve repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting your position with no evidence to back it up. You will enumerate, post and reference these misrepresentations. Direct quotes please. If you are unable to enumerate, post and reference these misrepresentations, you will retract your accusations.

    Time to deliver the goods, Joe.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Unchecked, anyone can do this to anyone. I can close down BC, TK, RJ, if that were truly my design. I can sully their online names with the same games (“XX, I haven’t seen where you’ve condemned pedophilia or renounced your support for NAMBLA. Why haven’t you denounced NAMBLA? …sure, you do it now, but that’s only after I called you out for it. What did you do before?“) Of course, they can use mod powers, but that’s the point isn’t it?

    If you read my posts in this thread, I have treated the subject matter respectfully. Some subject matter should not be treated flippantly, others, usually found in open threads, lend themselves to flippancy.

    I’ve seen a small cadre of posters shut down discussions and particular posters. Their tools, much like Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs, are cheap in their production and easily mass produced, but they keep the neighbors inside.

    I will not allow them to do that to me. If so, I will either join them in their tactics (as a demonstration of the dangers) or I will leave.

    I have no problem honestly discussing and debating ideas and opinions. This forum introduced a topic for discussion, and I treated the topic respectfully and seriously. My supported opinions seemed to have rubbed some the wrong way.

    (…Kinda reminds me of when I went out with Korean and foreign colleagues, and the Koreans wanted to know what we foreigners thought about Dokdo. We asked whether they really wanted to know, and we told them. … By their anger and tone, we learned that once again they wanted us to tell them what they thought we should think (i.e., they wanted us to lie to them). We again relearned the correct things, and we told them. After they left, we all laughed.)

  • tinyflowers

    That’s a lot of words Joe but not even a passing attempt to answer my question, after I answered all of yours. I can’t say I’m surprised that you failed to deliver once again. At first it was kind of annoying, yet amusing. Now it’s just sad.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Referring to #116, I want to be perfectly clear that in the discussion of Dokdo, the opinions that the foreigners stated were unanimous on the strength of the evidence for Korea’s claim to Dokdo. The opinion that the foreigners found weak was Korea’s and Koreans’ stated reasons for not presenting their argument to the ICJ to gain international recognition and settle the issue.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    The mods put me in the time out room for 24 hours.

    Actually, the Spam catcher put you in the time out room for 24 hours. Well, it put you in the Spam catcher anyway. It was in there for 24 hours because I was busy.

    Anyway, Joe, might I suggest it’s pretty self-evident from the discussion that tinyflowers’s accusations are, at best, weak. I don’t really want to start kicking people off for poor reading comprehension/poor argumentative skills—I’d be left with about five commenters then.

    hamel’s comment about the Special Olympics might be insensitive, but it’s also good policy—don’t argue with the trolls. If you find what they say so intolerably slanderous, shoot me an email and I’ll look at it.

  • hamel

    I hardly think I was being insensitive – I didn’t quote the offending punchline. But as you say, the truth still holds.

    But also, the man is anonymous, as his monniker clearly states. To talk about damage to reputation when your offline identity is unknown is a tenuous and fraught argument at best. Lawyers, back me up here.

  • tinyflowers

    Hey Joe, what does this have to do with the ICJ? Stop deflecting and try answering my question. You’ve accused me of misrepresenting your position and harming your reputation. You’ve threatened legal action. You’ve been lobbying to have me banned or censored. Yet you have offered absolutely zero factual evidence to back up your claims, though I’ve asked you repeatedly.

    If you will kindly enumerate, post and reference these alleged misrepresentations, I would appreciate it. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked you this, but you have continually failed to deliver, and the silence is deafening. I’ll tell you what, if you can prove on a factual basis that I have misrepresented what you have said, I will submit to a voluntary ban of a duration appropriate to the crime, as determined by the blog owner. Note that you first made your accusation and threatened legal action in comment #79, wherein you quoted my comment which contained the alleged misrepresentations. Please limit your evidence to that comment.

    Now that I have given you incentive to back up what you say, will you take up the challenge?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @120 hamel: I want to believe that you did not intend an offensive allusion. Please reconsider, and I will believe you. I concede that the truth still holds for the point (“winning an internet argument and 50 cents will buy you a can of coke“) that you tried to make.

    You missed the real point, which I will expand upon later.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Tinyflowers: He doesn’t have to—Arghaeri did a very good job of demonstrating how you, ahem, misunderstood what Anonymous_Joe wrote. Which is a shame, because there’s more than enough to take issue with without creative reasoning games.

  • tinyflowers

    Arg was wildly inconsistent with his reasoning. He argued (correctly) that just because you praise something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are condoning it. Yet when I made the corollary argument – that just because you accuse someone of praising something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are accusing them of condoning it – he wanted no part of it. He wanted it both ways.

    Still, Joe should fight his own battles. Arg isn’t the one threatening legal action here, Joe is. He should at least state, unequivocally, the basis for his legal threats. The fact that he hasn’t speaks volumes.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Tinyflowers wrote (#124):

    He should at least state, unequivocally, the basis for his legal threats.

    Tinyflowers, I am thinking about suing you for boring me to death.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    #124, Im thinking of suing her for not acting her gender.

  • tinyflowers

    ockquote>But also, the man is anonymous, as his monniker clearly states. To talk about damage to reputation when your offline identity is unknown is a tenuous and fraught argument at best

    It’s the first time I’ve seen it. Really, who anonymously threatens legal action in the comment section of a blog? The sheer stupidity of it boggles the mind. Moreso when you consider that he can’t even back up his accusations. He wont sue me anyway since in my jurisdiction truth is an absolute defense :).

  • tinyflowers

    I am thinking about suing you for boring me to death.

    If you’re so bored why don’t you go read old maps or recite turd poetry or whatever it is you do.