What's new

Okinawans in outlying isles more afraid of Abe than China

Pangu

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
5
Country
China
Location
China
Okinawans in outlying isles more afraid of Abe than China
Kuchikomi May. 27, 2014 - 06:57AM JST ( 26 )

TOKYO —

The town of Taketomi, population about 4,000, is spread out over six islands in the East China Sea. China is 400 km away, Tokyo 2,000 kms away. Residents fear the latter more than the former, says Josei Jishin (May 27).

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s determination to nullify the pacifist Constitution, coupled with his administration’s efforts to pressure the local school board into adopting an ideologically conservative junior high school civics textbook, brings back World War Two memories that are rawer here than elsewhere. As one mother of a third-year junior high school student put it, “My thinking is simple. I don’t want my son going off to war.”

The Yaeyama island chain on which Taketomi is situated is Okinawa Prefecture’s, and Japan’s, farthest-flung expanse. “Japan’s Galapagos,” it’s called for its subtropical forests and exotic, elusive wildlife (the iriomote cat being the most famous example). Tourists who love it for hiking and snorkeling may miss the undercurrents typified by 84-year-old Sadako Nakamura, famous locally as a “story-teller” or reciter. Her subject? War, whose ugly realities the Abe government’s moves make her fear have been forgotten in ruling circles.

The textbook row, simmering since 2011, began with Taketomi’s school board opting out of a regional board’s decision to adopt a civics textbook that lays no particular stress on Okinawa’s role as a front-line sacrifice in Japan’s doomed war against a far stronger enemy. The board chose instead another textbook that respects Japan’s postwar Constitutional pacifism and does acknowledge Okinawa as a victim not only of a climactic American invasion but of foolhardy and inhumane policy-making in Tokyo.

The legal argument over who has the last word in textbook selection – the local board or the wider regional entity – drags on. Nakamura, leading a campaign in defense of the more pacifist text, recalls for Josei Jishin her own wartime education.

She was born in Yaeyama in 1929. Her father worked in the local sugar factory. She remembers a poem she recited as a first grader: “Advance, advance, soldiers, advance.” “I never understood where they were advancing to.”

With the war in full swing, “Our teachers taught us that Japan could only win.” What defense does a child have against adult nonsense? “Nobody among my classmates ever doubted it.”

At a girls’ junior high school in Naha, the prefectural capital, lessons consisted largely of bamboo sword practice. Bamboo swords in the hands of every last citizen were to be the ultimate defense against an enemy fighting with planes and bombs. “We’d make straw dolls representing American soldiers and practice running them through.” Again, she tells Shukan Josei, no one doubted at the time that this was reasonable, or that Japan would win.

Her father, called up to the front in 1944, left her a parting gift – a sashimi knife with which, if threatened with capture, she was to kill the other family members and then take her own life. This was just before the October 1944 U.S. bombing raid that reduced Naha to rubble.

Nakamura and her family left the smoldering city (“I remember the smell of burning sugar”) and sought refuge in the nearby countryside. She was captured in May 1945 while hiding in a hut. She drew out the sashimi knife. Should she kill herself? “I was torn between a desire to die and a desire to live.” Her American captors offered her bread and jam. “Poison,” she thought. But no – “everything was totally different from what they’d taught us at school.”

Her point is clear. She and her fellow townspeople want no more of Tokyo-centric education that glorifies the nation and recognizes war as a just national expedient. They’ve seen where that leads, and they don’t want to go there again.

Japan Today

Okinawans in outlying isles more afraid of Abe than China ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion
 
Completely understandable. Okinawan women are the currency that Japan uses to pay for its US military presence. Some call it the "islands without virgins", because schoolgirls are raped en masse by US troops. Judging from this heinous apathy towards the their welfare, it's obvious that mainland Yayoi/Yamato Japanese simply don't regard the Okinawans as the same people as them.
 
This is the key to Diaoyu island dispute, the restoration of the Ryukyu Kingdom.

Well if you want Okinawa that badly, try and take it.

Completely understandable. Okinawan women are the currency that Japan uses to pay for its US military presence. Some call it the "islands without virgins", because schoolgirls are raped en masse by US troops. Judging from this heinous apathy towards the their welfare, it's obvious that mainland Yayoi/Yamato Japanese simply don't regard the Okinawans as the same people as them.

Article doesn't say anything about the women being raped en masse or being used to pay for military bases. Where you get that from please?:-) All I see is something from WW2.
 
Well if you want Okinawa that badly, try and take it.

I guess your slogan of liberty & democracy would not extend to the Okinawan huh? China doesn't want Okinawa, nor would China try to take it. However, there is enough indepdence sentiment on the island that it would be in China's interest to utilitize. Afterall, the legal status of Okinawa can very much be challenged. After WWII it was put under US trusteeship, as such, what US transfer unilaterally to Japan can only be the administrative power over the island, not the sovereignty of the island which US itself does not possess. I would say Okinawa would have the same legal status as that of East Timor before its independence. China should voice its support for the restoration of the Ryukyu kingdom through international forums and put pressure on the Japanese government for a referendum as all subject of trusteeship has the right to.
 
I guess your slogan of liberty & democracy would not extend to the Okinawan huh? China doesn't want Okinawa, nor would China try to take it. However, there is enough indepdence sentiment on the island that it would be in China's interest to utilitize. Afterall, the legal status of Okinawa can very much be challenged. After WWII it was put under US trusteeship, as such, what US transfer unilaterally to Japan can only be the administrative power over the island, not the sovereignty of the island which US itself does not possess. I would say Okinawa would have the same legal status as that of East Timor before its independence. China should voice its support for the restoration of the Ryukyu kingdom through international forums and put pressure on the Japanese government for a referendum as all subject of trusteeship has the right to.

There are many territories that we returned back to Japan in post-WW2. Anyways if there is enough sentiments for independence as you've said, then China would have voice their support already but haven't so why not? Perhaps they don't want an independent Okinawa. Maybe in fact the opposite of what you said and really want it badly.
China Refuses to Confirm Okinawa Island Belongs to Japanese - Bloomberg
China Refuses to Confirm Okinawa Island Belongs to Japanese
China refused to confirm that Okinawa belongs to Japan after two Chinese scholars suggested re-examining the ownership of the archipelago that includes the island, adding to tensions over a separate territorial dispute.

Agreements between allied forces during World War II mean the ownership of the Ryukyu Islands may be in question, the researchers said in a commentary in the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s main newspaper. Asked if China considers Okinawa part of Japan, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said scholars have long studied the history of the Ryukyus and Okinawa.

“It may be time to revisit the unresolved historical issue of the Ryukyu Islands,” Zhang Haipeng and Li Guoqiang of the China Academy of Social Sciences wrote in the commentary.

A move to reconsider ownership of the Ryukyus would add to strains as China and Japan assert their claims over a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. The Japanese government’s decision last year to purchase those islands, called Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese, sparked protests across China and harmed a $340 billion annual trade relationship that has yet to recover.

Tensions were compounded last month after Japanese lawmakers visited a Tokyo shrine where war criminals are honored along with other war dead and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed to protect the East China Sea islands by force. The Ryukyu Islands are home to about 1.5 million people.
 
There are many territories that we returned back to Japan in post-WW2. Anyways if there is enough sentiments for independence as you've said, then China would have voice their support already but haven't so why not? Perhaps they don't want an independent Okinawa. Maybe in fact the opposite of what you said and really want it badly.

Like I've said, you cannot give to another what you do not own, and Okinawa is one of them. Just as you have posted, China has on occasion challenged Japanese claim of soveriegnty over Okinawa, but that needs to be elevated to another level.
 
Like I've said, you cannot give to another what you do not own, and Okinawa is one of them. Just as you have posted, China has on occasion challenged Japanese claim of soveriegnty over Okinawa, but that needs to be elevated to another level.

Just like Iwo Jima? Cannot give to another what we do not own? You can elevated to many levels as you want, it still belongs to Japan.
iwo_jima.jpg


That's a detailed article for your brain consumption on the unwanted and hated barbarous US presence on Okinawa.

US Military Presence in Okinawa and Its Impacts on Women’s Development | ( 姚仕帆) - Academia.edu

Got connection failed. Meaning your article is a failure.
 
Just like Iwo Jima? Cannot give to another what we do not own? You can elevated to many levels as you want, it still belongs to Japan.

Iwo Jima was uninhabited through much of history, as such it does not have an original inhabitants to demand independence. Whether it is under Japanese control or US doesn't make any difference to anyone else. Okinawa is very different with over a million people and with a history of being an independence state until the expansion of Japanese imperial power, the case for its restoration is legally sound. It won't require any heavy lifting from China, but merely drawning more international attention to the case will be enough to get the ball rolling.
 
Iwo Jima was uninhabited through much of history, as such it does not have an original inhabitants to demand independence. Whether it is under Japanese control or US doesn't make any difference to anyone else. Okinawa is very different with over a million people and with a history of being an independence state until the expansion of Japanese imperial power, the case for its restoration is legally sound. It won't require any heavy lifting from China, but merely drawning more international attention to the case will be enough to get the ball rolling.

Okay whatever buddy, like you said cannot give to another what we do not own whether its uninhabited or not.
 
The Okinawan are people. Not chips to be traded for geopolitical gain.

God knows they have suffered enough.

Unfortunately, I do not see the Japanese and the American doing right by the Okinawan voluntarily. Therefore we are facing a dilemma.

For the Chinese people, the fate of the Okinawan is a mirror.
 
Status of Ryukyu Islands and International Justice

Source: China Times

April 25, 2014

Author: Wu, Zhe

For the first time, a US President stated that the scope of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan extended to the Diaoyutai Islands. Public opinion in the US denounced Mainland China’s intention to expand its sphere of influence into the East and South China Seas. However, if we review China’s modern history, China gave up opportunities to expand its sphere of influence on numerous occasions. The territorial claims of the Qing Dynasty and those after the establishment of the Republic of China do not differ. US President Barack Obama’s unprecedented statement vis-a-vis the Diaoyutai Islands reflects the mindset of little men and the egoism of the US. 【Editor’s note: The author implies the expansionism of the United States in the 19th century.】

One of the main reasons the Pax Sinica established by ancient Chinese dynasties succeeded was that it embodied higher moral idealism and values. Such principles and values influenced China for more than 2,000 years and continued even after China transformed itself into a modern state.

Both before and after the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, Chiang Kai-shek not only pursued China’s national independence, but also helped many Asian countries to rid themselves of colonial rule and seek independence and freedom. Chiang considered such assistance as China’s moral obligation. When Japan was about to be defeated in World War II, Chiang turned down the suggestion to annex Korea and Vietnam as spoils of war. Instead, Chiang did his utmost to help Korea, Vietnam, Burma and India to become independent. During the Cairo Conference, Chiang twice turned down US President Roosevelt’s suggestion to hand over the Ryukyu Islands to China. Chiang proposed that the Ryukyu Islands should be put under the joint trusteeship of the Republic of China (ROC) and the United States, which should finally help the Ryukyu Islands to restore independence.

Chiang viewed Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, the Ryukyu Islands, Manchuria, Taiwan and Tibet from Chinese political tradition. China never interfered in the Ryukyu Island’s internal affairs during the 500 years of vassal state-suzerain relations between Ryukyu and the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Chiang combined the values of international justice in Chinese history and the values of independence and freedom of colonies and second-class-colonies, and did not accept the rights of Japan to rule over the Ryukyu Islands since Emperor Meiji. Chiang’s position was quite different from the United Kingdom because the British did their utmost to maintain and protect their colonial interests.

Ever since the Cairo Conference, the ROC government has insisted that it would not recognize Japan’s claim of sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands. An editorial in the Taipei-based Central Daily News clearly explained the position of the ROC government on the issue of the Ryukyu Islands, i.e., sovereignty over the islands must be handled in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. The ROC continues to take the same position over the Ryukyu Islands and will not recognize the legitimacy of the US’s decision to unilaterally hand over the control over the Ryukyu Islands to Japan in 1972.

Confucius expounded on an ideal of “reviving states that had been extinguished, restoring families whose line of succession had been broken, and calling to office those who had retired into obscurity,” which reflected the principle of international justice in the Pax Sinica established by the ancient Chinese dynasties in East Asia and such values were lasting and universal, worth promoting. Chiang devoted himself to standing up for people under colonial rule and supported their rights to become independent and free, establishing new values of protecting international justice in the post-war order. The status and final settlement of the Ryukyu Islands must be reviewed under such principles and values.

Kuomintang News Network
 
Back
Top Bottom