Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "How Do Koreans Feel About Japan? | ASIAN BOSS" video.

I think it's important to keep in perspective that "sins of our fathers" is not a real argument and always maintain the distinction between people and their governments. The reason for the japanese government not to acknowledge the atrocities committed by earlier governments are quite nebulous. But the people of Japan does not represent their government, neither in present day or in the past. The governments are supposed to be the representatives. But considering how the wartime government of Japan wasn't really elected, it would be wrong for a Korean to confront and blame your average japanese citizen for these things. It's not like they, nor even their ancestors had any say in what their government did or what their military did. In fact, the way that Japan was ruled in the past doesn't differ that much from how North Korea is ruled today: governed my an unelected and very immoral elite that didn't care much for peoples lives at all.
42
Indeed. And I have to say that it seems to be positive changes for the most part. Younger Koreans seem to show more that they're collectively moving on rather than holding on to past grudges.
30
kama2135: Absolutely. And that's another issue that makes the issue further complicated: the fact that japanese students aren't taught about what happened. I'm not entirely sure of how prevalent it is, but from my impression, the japanese educational system (most likely under order from the government) really gloss over or ignore atrocities that the japanese government of the past has done. So many japanese citizens probably live in ignorance, which might make them feel unduly attacked by some koreans speaking out against it and react in a less desirable way that's not conducive to better relations, despite the fact that the criticism is quite valid. So I do agree with many people that the japanese government of today should acknowledge what happened more and start teaching the truth rather than try to gloss over the truth like they do now. I would argue that the average japanese person would agree that this would also be for the benefit of japan, because most japanese people of today seem quite pro-social and believe in virtues like cooperation and friendly relations and trade with other countries. And it's not like acknowledging the atrocities of the past and apologize for them out of respect of the victims would "cost" them anything. It's just the human, decent thing to do. Japan and South Korea are after all very similar in many ways. Both highly industrialized, free and prosperous societies in east asia. They both have everything to gain from improved relations and mutually beneficial cooperation would surely spring from an act of concession and public apology on the part of the japanese government.
17
kama2135: I know plenty about it. But my argument still applies, because as many people can testify, there's a lot of hate being spewed over the internet about it. But the hateful rhetoric doesn't take place between governments, it's taking place between citizens of the respective countries and that's where it's turning sour. An important principle to remember is trying not to confront regular citizens of other countries for crimes that governments have done. The issue is also very similar to what happens in Europe and the U.S. Like black people being taught (even in school) to hate white people because of slavery and colonization that happened over 200 years ago. No one alive today should be expected to feel responsible for, or apologize for crimes that happened when they weren't even born or had any means of affecting it.
14
kama2135: Thank you too, the feeling is mutual. I just hope my opinionated nature doesn't come across as arrogant, being an outsider who's neither korean or japanese. (but I have great respect and admiration for both peoples) I just like to think that I try to look at the perspectives of all sides at the best of my abilities and draw my conclusions from that, and promote that other people try to as well when possible. I just try to put myself in others' shoes in an effort to understand why they think and react the way they do.
10
Chí Thiện Nguyễn: Do you deny that the Vietnamese enemies of Korea and the U.S did things like hide weapons caches in civilian villages and towns? Do you deny that Vietnamese fighers hid themselves among civilian populations and staged attacks by using civilians? There are tons of reports of vietnamese children being sent as suicide bombers by groups like the Vietcong and the like in order to kill and maim U.S and Korean troops during the conflict. It's actions like that which cause troops to consider all civilians to be potential hostiles and leads to further innocent deaths. Put yourself in their shoes. Just the day before you had soldier buddies getting blown to pieces by a civilian suicide bomber, you're in a foreign country, scared for your life and rumors circulate everywhere that there are enemy troops hiding among the civilians. Do you seriously believe that you'd be able to make sure that you or your superior officer never harms an innocent civilian under those conditions? If anything you should place your blame on the Vietnamese armed forces who were willing to resort to such underhanded tactics. The U.S troops didn't send civilian suicide bombers to deal with their enemies, and they always wore uniforms. Real soldiers wear uniforms to show which side they're on, even so the enemies know it and so their enemies DON'T go chasing after innocent civilians in pursuit of them. When you start using civilians to attack enemy troops then YOU are the one who paints a target on civilians backs, not the enemy.
8
Chí Thiện Nguyễn: I can agree that it isn't a good idea to praise soldiers for missions they might've been involved with. Especially if the missions were about atrocities. That said, I think veterans deserve a measure of national gratitude for their service. The issue with soldiers is that for a soldier to function as a soldier, they can't be expected to make moral choices on their own. The task of a soldier is to follow orders. That's their job. Sometimes the orders a soldier recieves is evil. Sometimes the orders are good. But it is not a soldiers place to question or disregard orders from his superior officer or to dictate morality. If they did, then keeping a military functioning becomes an impossibility. And of course, sometimes soldiers do terrible things outside of what they were ordered to, and should be prosecuted for it through court martial, because if a soldier acts like that, then it is a warcrime. But with that being said: soldiers are almost universally put through some of the worst conditions imaginable. They are tasked with facing death and dismemberment in service of their country, and often they are tasked with doing things that violates their own moral principles. That's a service that no civilian is expected to live up to. So veterans DO deserve gratitude for their service, regardless of what they might have been ordered to do by their government.
6
Michael Ding: Well that only goes to show that something is terribly wrong with Confusianism, as well as Islam and Christianity doesn't it? Being open minded to other cultures is all fine and grand, but when a culture teaches that a rape victim should feel ashamed for being violated by a criminal, then something is seriously wrong with that culture. It's like saying that a man who had his money stolen from someone should be shamed for having falling victim to thievery. It makes no sense, regardless of what perspective a person might have.
5
Holy shit! That 82 year old gentleman doesn't look a day older than 65. :O
5
Chí Thiện Nguyễn: Civilians always die in wartime. That's just the nature of war.
4
The sad thing is, it's not so much about being "forgetful" as it is about not being taught in the first place. Please keep in mind that the japanese educational system often gloss over or flat out ignore teaching about the atrocities commited by past governments. Most japanese people are kept completely ignorant of what happened. This is a mistake of the japanese government and they should start teaching the truth. But try to keep it in mind if you criticize japan in front of regular japanese citizens. Their reactions most likely stem from a position of ignorance. If they knew more about what really happened, then they probably wouldn't react as defensively.
4
Meme Me: They haven't "left out" anything. The old man speaks for himself, not his entire country. Asian boss is asking people, individuals about their opinions. They don't use those individuals as sole representatives for the country and make this very clear both in the beginning and near the end of each video.
4
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of offering compensation for things that happened far in the past. One has to remember that compensation paid today, would be paid with tax payers money of today. But the people alive today were not complicit in the crimes of the past. Most of them weren't even born back then so they had no way at all to influence or put a stop to those crimes. Just to put things in perspective: Let's say that Japan planned to build a childrens hospital for helping children diagnosed with cancer. Would it really be fair to abolish those plans just to use the money (paid by present day japanese citizens) to give to Koreans as a token of atonement for crimes that the past Japanese government did during the early 1900's? I do agree that the government should acknowledge the crimes and offer a formal apology for what happened. Maybe erect a monument in a public place IN JAPAN in honour of the victims, instead of trying to avoid discussion about the issue or not even teaching their high school students about what happened. But when you drag money into the mix, the whole issue becomes infected and just sets an odd moral precedent. As if you can simply "buy" your way out of guilt from terrible crimes, by bribing the victims (or the descendants of the victims) I don't believe money would settle the issue as much as a more cultural and intellectual acknowledgement would.
3
Molly Holly: Frankly, I think the chinese have bigger and more domestic issues rather than vying for some east asian unity. Like the fact that they are still ruled by an oppressive, unelected, socialist government.
3
김우성: Well both countries are close strategic allies with the U.S, so I have a hard time believing their strategic interests differ that much.
2
@freesian59 Thank you for your perspective Tanaka. I guess my main points can be condensed to the following: People should not hate other people for what happened in past wars. Governments declare war and send soldiers to war. People generally do not. (people generally don't even get a say in the matter) If ones own government committed atrocities, then one should condemn it. If ones own government committed atrocities and refuse to apologize or own up to it, then one should also condemn it. I'm not saying that a government should have to pay money to make up for things (I generally dislike the principle that money could somehow weigh up for killings or rapes, because it implies that you can purchase your way out of guilt and responsibility with money), an apology doesn't cost anything so it's the least a government can do. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious. It is a chapter that no government on earth should've opened. But with that said, The Japanese did fight in very atrocious ways. It was as if the Emperor had mobilized the entire country to fight to the death. In more "normal" warfare, soldiers fight until either side is strategically and tactically incapacitated and that side then surrenders. Yet the japanese government had basically institutionalized suicide bombings. They didn't care how many lives they threw away in their war effort. They spent lives of young men like other nations spend bullets. When an enemy crosses that line, then you can't really fight a "normal" war against them. It's not that different from the way that muslim terrorist organizations fight today to be honest. One has to think about what would've happened if the Americans didn't use the nuclear bombs. Let's assume that they instead chose to land troops on mainland japan and fight a land war over there. What would the japanese government do? How many more lives would they throw away in such a situation? How many japanese civilians would be coerced or even drawn to the calling of martyrdom and staging suicide attacks on american troops, putting the american soldiers in a situation where they basically have to treat every single japanese person they see as a potential hostile only to stay alive themselves? Even today, Japan seems to struggle with a kind of suicide culture. An alarming amount of japanese people take their own lives, and this seems to be a cultural holdover from times in the past where suicide was considered a noble act to restore lost honour. One can only imagine how such a culture would manifest itself if the U.S had pursued a land war in Japan instead. Of course it's speculation, but there's a very real possibility that even more lives would've been lost as a result on both sides. I don't wish to offend you by playing the devils advocate here, but with the nuclear bombings, they at least had the desired effect. They forced the imperial japanese government to surrender. It took the complete destruction of two cities to get them to see that no amount of "noble suicide" would be able to stop such an attack. They must have realized that the U.S could obliterate every single city in Japan if necessary so there wouldn't have been much left to fight over. At the time, it seemed like the japanese were convinced that as long as they sent more people to die, eventually they would win. Surrender was not an option... Until the nuclear bombs dropped. Thankfully they did surrender after that. And that was also probably the last time the U.S did the responsible thing after they go to war with another country. They stayed behind and helped rebuild and made an effort to improve relations with their defeated foes and work towards becoming allies. Sadly, this has not been a norm for the U.S since. They have suffered from very irresponsible leadership that starts wars with other countries, destroy their governments and infrastructure, and then simply leaves the country in shambles. (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.) But with Japan, relations have just been getting better. And both countries have flourished financially since. I don't think any member of the armed forces in the U.S look back at the atomic bombings with any sense of "pride" either. In a serious conversation about it with americans, most seem to consider it a dark chapter of their countrys history, which it most certainly was. It's not something they "wanted", but at the time they couldn't see any other option. But one needs to look towards the future. The hatchet is buried and japanese and american citizens only stands to benefit from friendly relations with eachother. Oh and just to put it into perspective: i'm not an american myself. This is just my view of the situation from the outside. So I don't have this view because i'm biased towards a U.S perspective or anything.
2
Please, let's not think in terms of "new world order". Foreign relations should be about mutually beneficial trade and exchange not dominance. We've already had conflicts based on dominance, and all it lead to was the deaths of millions and coming close to the end of the world as well as putting immoral and downright evil people into power (like the Kim family in North Korea, Adolf Hitler in Germany, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Josef Stalin in Russia, Mao in China etc.) Mutual respect for national borders and sovreignty and mutually beneficial trade is the way forward. Also, as a European I can tell you that the support for the EU among European citizens is crumbling, mainly because the EU is outright ignoring and violating the very things I mentioned above (like national sovreignty), and it will MOST DEFINITELY do the same to asia as well. Centralized rule and "superstates" is not a good thing. All it leads to is destabilization and erosion of social cohesion.
2
Virgin Gigolo: Well what you "consider" doesn't really change the facts.
2
Devin Stambolziovski: How can the british be "responsible" for diseases that they knew nothing about at the time? How where they supposed to predict that native americans had such weak immune systems that they couldn't handle common viruses and bacteria widespread in Europe?
2
taiwan tungus: Russians are not relatives to mongols. The first kingdoms that eventually became russia were founded by scandinavian (mostly Swedish) vikings.
1
@sylphr4843 : People have to forget eventually. Hold on to grudges forever, and the only solution is eithet through the annihilation of your society or the other guys society. Pretty big price to pay for forever holding onto a grudge.
1