Jump to content

What hope is there for mankind....


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tarz my man, I suspected I may have got your back up with the reference to Hiroshima & Nagasaki.I perhaps could have made my point more clear.

 

I am not in any way judging the US & their decision.I actually quite like America.It was just an example I gave because you made the point that they wouldnt be used & yet infact a form of them had already been used.

 

I am simply stating the obvious fact that nuclear bombs are bad (I really do give up if you still cant see the almost painfully simple logic behind this statement)

 

As for the japs thing, it is simply an abbreviation of japanese.My fingers simply ache a little less writing it that way, if anyone gets offended by that they need to grow some thicker skin.My name is actually Daniel, but Dan is fine lol

 

 

As for preventing WW3, I fear that maybe they will cause it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You wanna be careful using the word japs on vegan forums – I did so on another board and got accused of racism…

 

whaaaaaat.....?

 

Isn't it just like using something like "Scot", in that its seperate from terms such as "yank" or "chink" by actually being a perfectly legitimate abbreviation of "Scot(lander)" or "Scot(tish person)" .... just as "jap"(anese person) really doesn;t seem bad to me at all.

 

Are japanese people upset by that, then ?

 

(^?^) <- baffled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are japanese people upset by that, then ?

 

(^?^) <- baffled

 

Yes. It's considered a racist term, and has been since at least WWII, if not before.

 

 

Jap is a term originally used as an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is regarded as an ethnic slur, though English-speaking countries differ in the degree they consider the term offensive. Japanese Americans have come to find the term controversial or offensive, even when used as an abbreviation. [1] In the past, Jap was not considered primarily offensive; however, after the events of World War II, the term became derogatory.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are japanese people upset by that, then ?

 

(^?^) <- baffled

 

Yes. It's considered a racist term, and has been since at least WWII, if not before.

 

 

Jap is a term originally used as an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is regarded as an ethnic slur, though English-speaking countries differ in the degree they consider the term offensive. Japanese Americans have come to find the term controversial or offensive, even when used as an abbreviation. [1] In the past, Jap was not considered primarily offensive; however, after the events of World War II, the term became derogatory.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

 

 

there you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there you go.

 

Japan isn't considered to be an 'english speaking country', though.

 

Obviously, if people choose to talk to someone who is not of a nationality, but just looks a bit like they are, as if their looks define them completely (ie including defining their nationality) , that's racist..... that's totally different.

 

For comparison, Americans who have a parent originating from Scotland but who have lived their whole lives as an American, might rightly get a pissed off sometimes, to be referred to as "Scots" .... because that is racist.

 

If they were Scots in the first place though, then they wouldn;t have those same issues, and woudl have a different nationalist altogether.... so their brain most likely then wouldn't go into an offence-taking state when they are called Scots, in the same way, I reckon, and the same goes for Japanese folks in general it seems to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a look with the Google poodle -

 

 

Most people aren't aware that it's offensive because unlike the other more obvious slurs, this "so called one"'s meaning really depends on how it's used (it's commonly used between my Japanese friends FYI, and no - NONE take offense; It's also a convienient abbreviation)

 

- Random JapanZone Quote

 

 

 

But some Japanese ARE offended by it, so its better not to use it.

 

- Another random Japan Zone comment

 

 

The word shouldnt be offensive anymore than Brit, Yank, or Afghan is and it only IS offensive because people still attach a racist connotation to it.

 

- ... And a 3rd one

 

I concur.

 

If some Japanese people are doing those attachments and then going on to be offended though, then well... I wasn't calling anyone a "Jap" in the first place (I'm long winded that way even though I've hung out with a fair few japanese folks in my time online) , so it's no effort for me to go on avoiding using it.

 

But hey, you learn something new every day eh ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon, and the same goes for Japanese folks in general it seems to me.

 

Seeing as we are not Japanese natives speaking casually amongst our own people, I don't see what bearing this has on the subject. We are for the most part english speaking americans and europeans.

 

In the United States and Canada, the term is now considered derogatory; Webster's Dictionary notes it is "usually disparaging."[4] In the United Kingdom it is considered derogatory, and the Oxford dictionary defines it as offensive.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And is yank offensive to any other Americans? I actually like the term and wish everyone from other countries would call me a yank. I love when English people say it.

 

No, but the term yank comes from a war long ago and all the people who experienced it are long dead. There were also no nuclear weapons used and 10's of millions of people were not killed. WWII is from a very different page in history, many of us have relatives who experienced it first hand in various countries throughout the world.

 

To me "Jap" is a clearly offensive and racist term. I can't see it just being thrown around lightly in conversation to describe an entire nation of people. Of course, I'm American and I do live around people who experienced WWII and that is the only context I have ever heard it used in, the racist context that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

Originally I was referring to present day conventional war perhaps preventing states obtaining the bomb who may have less scruples in using it than the current nuclear club, so I conceeded from the very start that scenarios may arise that such weapons are indeed used. I never stated that they'd never been used before.

 

As for being bad, well yes in theory, but they're here now and they're hear to stay for a long time yet, perhaps for as long as human existance, and yes human existance may end because of them. As we've got them in the world now, I think good has and can come of them. For example, the US and USSR never engaged in direct, open conflict as that would of probably resulted in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like the term and wish everyone from other countries would call me a yank. I love when English people say it.

Cubby - you're a yank.

 

Now if Cubby could only hear that with your accent Tarz. If you've never spoken to Tarz, he has the greatest accent on the planet, even other British people can't understand him. I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like the term and wish everyone from other countries would call me a yank. I love when English people say it.

Cubby - you're a yank.

 

Now if Cubby could only hear that with your accent Tarz. If you've never spoken to Tarz, he has the greatest accent on the planet, even other British people can't understand him. I love it.

 

Sweet, thank you for that. You should get a recording online of you saying that somehow, Tarz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, I am optimistic at times. Not so much online though. Very unhappy with what I've found online.

 

The way people communicate online is not indicative of the way they would communicate face to face, and therefore is not a fair representation of who or how good they are. Electronic communication like forums, email and instant messaging allow us to hide behind a certain degree of anonymity and lack the body language and human feedback that would normally moderate our language. I've heard of numerous scientific studies that have measured this phenomenon.

 

I'm sure everyone, at some time, has said things online that they would never say face to face, and now regret because it's recorded online potentially forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to WWII and the first use of nuclear weapons, history is written by the victors. Atrocities were committed by both sides (remember the Allied firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and many other Axis civilian centers), and it has been argued that Japan considered the US asset freeze and oil embargo as an act of war, to which they responded with the attack on Pearl Harbour. It certainly wasn't "unprovoked" as many people think - there were geopolitical factors that lead to it. Japan does not have a monopoly on teaching revisionist history.

 

I'm not condoning Axis aggression and atrocities, merely restating that the simple, one-sided stories we're often fed as historic truth in school and the media are far from the comprehensive truth.

 

Personally I do believe that if any war was morally justifiable, WWII would be it - insane dictators who desire to take over the world by force and have the public support and means to do it need to be stopped. And although the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably did reduce casualties on both sides and shorten the war in the Pacific by a few months, I have no doubt that a key motivation for doing so was to send a clear message/warning of post-war American technological supremacy to the Soviets. Also, many more civilians were killed in single nights of the conventional firebombing raids than were killed by either nuclear blast.

 

Having said that though, nuclear weapons and in fact all weapons, profitting from the sale of weapons and war of all kinds are abhorent to me.

 

The only good thing about nuclear weapons (and the even greater weapons of mass destruction that will surely be invented in future) is that it forces us to seriously think about how we relate to one another and resolve disputes between cultures and nations. The stakes are far too high now. One mistake and we're all screwed. Hopefully such thoughts will catalyze a large enough group of people into action but given we've had over 50 years of nuclear proliferation and mostly ignored treaties, there seems to be no sign of that yet. It will probably take one of the reportedly missing suitcase bombs from the former Soviet Union to show up in a major center with its clock ticking before anyone in power will acknowledge that more needs to be done. And I'm not talking more security and further erosion of civil liberties to stamp out terrorism, but more work on addressing poverty, hunger, inequality and the education/information divide that results in dispair, hopelessness, intolerance and ignorance.

 

Personally I think the whole idea of nation states has outlived its usefulness. Climate change and the threat of nuclear obliteration have clearly demonstrated our global interconnectedness that transcends national borders and renders the concept obsolete. The sooner we all acknowledge that the Earth and environment upon which all species depend trumps ideology and patriotism, the sooner we can work towards a saner future.

 

Veganism is one small way I can contribute to that saner future.

 

Rant over.

 

P.S. The Fog of War is a great documentary if anyone is interested in the morality and complexity of modern conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like the term and wish everyone from other countries would call me a yank.

 

 

(1) Broad Orcadian

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePpYnQ2WNSs

 

 

"aye aye Cubby boeuy, ye're a yank"

 

 

 

(2) My usual accent (since Orcadian only seems truly fitting for talking about subjects such as wellies, tatties, clapshot, tractors, silage , standing in fields holding cows on bits of string, chewing straw , etc)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQG94Nm7PY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

inteja - With regard to bombing of civilian centres, it was wrongly believed at the time that morale and war production would both decrease and shorten the war as a result. In the case of Germany morale held fast, the same in the UK in the Blitz, and German war materiel output continued to improve throughout the war. It’s easy now to condemn Allied bombing of Germany – but it must be remembered it was for a period the only way the UK (fighting alone for some of this time) could take the war to the Germans, even if we know now that it’s impact was limited. Perhaps Dresden was unnecessary with the end of the war in sight, although some argue it was a major transit point for the Wehrmacht so therefore a legitimate military target. The US asset freeze and embargo doesn’t explain though what the Japanese were doing in China throughout the 1930’s – as far back as Manchuria/Manchukuo in 1931, maybe even before then too, I can’t recall exactly right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s easy now to condemn Allied bombing of Germany – but it must be remembered it was for a period the only way the UK could take the war to the Germans.

 

I agree, but that doesn't make it any less an atrocity or war crime. Is suicide bombing justified or any less a crime if the perpetrators have no other recourse open to them to achieve their ends?

 

Despite the effects of the firebombing I think it's equally disgraceful that (to the best of my knowledge) the RAF bomber crews were never honored for their service.

 

The US asset freeze and embargo doesn’t explain though what the Japanese were doing in China throughout the 1930’s – as far back as Manchuria/Manchukuo in 1931, maybe even before then too, I can’t recall exactly right now.

 

The Second Sino-Japanese War had its origins in the First Sino-Japanese War which was, in part, the result of the forced opening to trade and the end of Japanese seclusionist policy by the American Intervention in 1854.

 

Using the above timeline in isolation one could argue that America was primarily responsible for planting the seeds of the Pearl Harbour attack almost a century later. But of course that's not what I am saying. It is impossible to determine all of the factors that lead to war.

 

So again I agree with you but it just reinforces my key point that the history of any given conflict is much more complex than the one-sided, victor-centric version many have grown up believing in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full on WW2 conversation

 

Inteja I agree with your point about there being complex reasons for war,

 

The Japanese & Chinese have a long history of tension going much further back (in medieval times) so that has to be considered.

 

As for the rest you guys have commented on, who really knows?

 

The fact is Germany had already started a war before that - WW1..

 

Then again they begin a war, only this time with even greater aspirations of killing & genocide.

 

Im afraid it comes down to the classic playground dispute of who started it... & it was Germany.Therefore any sympathy people may level at the Germans is misplaced.They made their bed, & they ended up lying in it.

 

Their general population paid the price , but unfortunately, isnt that always the case in war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like the term and wish everyone from other countries would call me a yank.

 

 

(1) Broad Orcadian

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePpYnQ2WNSs

 

 

"aye aye Cubby boeuy, ye're a yank"

 

 

 

(2) My usual accent (since Orcadian only seems truly fitting for talking about subjects such as wellies, tatties, clapshot, tractors, silage , standing in fields holding cows on bits of string, chewing straw , etc)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQG94Nm7PY

 

Beautiful! I love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some have argued that WWII was a Total War and the Allies had to do whatever was necessary to win it. I should of added in my last post that the bombing campaign was also important and significant in that it forced the Germans to diverse men and materials from other fronts – fighters had to withdrawn from the various fronts to defend the Fatherland, I think I read once that somewhere around a million German servicemen were employed in flak batteries and other AA defences, and the 88mm's used as AA guns would have gone a log way if more could have been used on the turret of a tank and so on…

 

Bomber Command have still not received a Campaign Medal. A recent article regarding this from a distinguished historian here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/13/do1302.xml . Some good comments at the bottom of the article (it is a conservative newspaper and the comments in the main do reflect that), one of which sums it up pretty well for me – ‘Bomber Command aircrew (unlike U Boat crews and Kamikaze pilots) were fighting to destroy evil fascism not defend it’, and that fits in well with DaN’s comment about starting a war - amongst other reasons, as they weren't the only reasons -for killing and genocide, as opposed to fighting a war to stop it. Here is the present governments reasoning for this - http://www.hmvf.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=134

 

I agree inteja, you can’t just take the preceeding 10-20 or so odd years beforehand to put events in context. You have to put events in the perspective of a much bigger timefame

Edited by Tarz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful! I love it!

 

(^-^) Thankyou ! I'm glad you enjoyed it !

 

Haha, a little while ago I thought "hey it could be amusing to do a podcast about veganism in broad orcadian", since it's so ironic but then i remembered that most people would have no idea what i was saying.... maybe i could learn how to do subtitles or something , haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful! I love it!

 

(^-^) Thankyou ! I'm glad you enjoyed it !

 

Haha, a little while ago I thought "hey it could be amusing to do a podcast about veganism in broad orcadian", since it's so ironic but then i remembered that most people would have no idea what i was saying.... maybe i could learn how to do subtitles or something , haha

 

I am going to have to check out those vides when I am off work and have audio. I am excited.

 

I don't feel I know enough about WWII to participate in this current discussion. I have studied the American-Vietnamese Conflict quite a bit since high school, but my WWII knowledge is mostly high school B.S.

 

I may check out The Fog of War, I have been meaning to watch that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...