Is anyone else still slightly creeped out by the Japanese? by kpo

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I keep seeing mentions like this and I am no longer certain that the context and slang is understood.

I'm sorry I dont know what you are referring to here. What slang? Context?

Quote:

For any civilization or society which desires to survive, waiting until the actual land upon which the home is built (the "homestead") is tactically and strategically very stupid and extremely short-sighted.
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon Territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming invaders?
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House or Congress, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming infiltrators?
When pursuing a peace or combat campaign in the barrens of the Middle East, would it make better sense to find the most valuable piece of land, or most useful piece of land, and try to defend it, or to find a vacant spot in the desert and dig in a defensive position, from which planning can sprout from, and greatly effective skirmishes can be controlled from?

You may be making snide remarks, or you might actually understand the wisdom, I'm not sure. If you were interested, thought I would help by pointing out the higher level of military opertions which you might have been making snark on.

I'm not making snide remarks and I'm not actually taking a position here. It was an observation of how the military functions and why 'following orders' is a necessary part of its function.

Basically you have to be trained to be in circumstances that most untrained people would flee or be unable to function.

As for the rest of the topic, I suppose I tend to see things in more greys than black and white than many people. That being said, I dont think all things are equal in war. There are definetely behaviours that are more atrocious than others, but the very act of declaring war (or not declaring and waging armed conflict) means that you will be killing in order to achieve your goals. Each society tends to 'pretty up' the unpaletable by making it a rightous conflict or a 'necessary to preserve our way of life'...and sometimes it is, but often, mostly, it's about control of resources or spheres of influence or both.

In most wars, if the young men and women who were on the front line really thought about it and the reasons they were doing it, they'd pretty much 'fuck this, I'm outa here' but then again armies have long been made up of the poorest, with least or no choice led by the most powerful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
[
Must agree. Not only as directed at kpo, but also many others with the same viewpoints.
As a reference, have you always been on the same continent/island, or have you lived on other countries for periods?

Lived mostly in this remote neck of the world, but also in UK for 6 years. You?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 13, 2014 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep seeing mentions like this and I am no longer certain that the context and slang is understood.

I'm sorry I dont know what you are referring to here. What slang? Context?

"When we take up arms, it is not usually because the homestead is under attack"
As a strictly technical statement, I have seen this or similar often here, and usually let it slide.
Some might see "homestead" being used as slang, some might see it as reflecting context, some might think of it by strict definition. Is it meant to represent "the land our Family's home is built upon" or generically "the Home Land of our nation, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave" or something in between?
Quote:
Quote:

For any civilization or society which desires to survive, waiting until the actual land upon which the home is built (the "homestead") is tactically and strategically very stupid and extremely short-sighted.
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon Territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming invaders?
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House or Congress, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming infiltrators?
When pursuing a peace or combat campaign in the barrens of the Middle East, would it make better sense to find the most valuable piece of land, or most useful piece of land, and try to defend it, or to find a vacant spot in the desert and dig in a defensive position, from which planning can sprout from, and greatly effective skirmishes can be controlled from?

You may be making snide remarks, or you might actually understand the wisdom, I'm not sure. If you were interested, thought I would help by pointing out the higher level of military opertions which you might have been making snark on.

I'm not making snide remarks and I'm not actually taking a position here. It was an observation of how the military functions and why 'following orders' is a necessary part of its function.

Basically you have to be trained to be in circumstances that most untrained people would flee or be unable to function.

Military theater is not the sole purview of this team trait. Firefighters are trained to go in the opposite direction as those fleeing the fire - I do not often see the ungrateful minimizing their efforts, values, morals, or guiding principles. EMTs see much gory injuries, yet are trained to ignore the horrors and treat with life-saving measures. Training is a must in many jobs.

Quote:

As for the rest of the topic, I suppose I tend to see things in more greys than black and white than many people. That being said, I dont think all things are equal in war. There are definetely behaviours that are more atrocious than others, but the very act of declaring war (or not declaring and waging armed conflict) means that you will be killing in order to achieve your goals. Each society tends to 'pretty up' the unpaletable by making it a rightous conflict or a 'necessary to preserve our way of life'...and sometimes it is, but often, mostly, it's about control of resources or spheres of influence or both.

In most wars, if the young men and women who were on the front line really thought about it and the reasons they were doing it, they'd pretty much 'fuck this, I'm outa here' but then again armies have long been made up of the poorest, with least or no choice led by the most powerful.

This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belittle their ideals, actions, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pat is not the only example, merely a more visible one.
We are here due to our love of a Hollywood production. Recall that Hollywood was in many regards rationed due to the large number of Hollywood personnel who left to serve in WWII. A great many of them did so of their own will.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 13, 2014 6:20 PM

Due to weird editing, I need to quote this and edit it just to be able to read it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!

I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.

Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)

I'll take a stab at answering you.But you must remember that though I think of myself as an American Indian, I must state that I am not pure blood. My understandings have come from my family and looking at the history critically.
1. There was fighting here amongst the tribes but not complete destruction of tribes to my knowledge. The White Man did however introduce scalping to America.
2. We knew the land as we lived on it but "land ownership" was not known to us. Tribes had territories that they moved around for hunting purposes especially when you speak of the prairie tribes like the Dakota, Cheyenne and such.
3. Most histories were oral and they said we have been here since the beginning of time. Time for us meant the movement of the seasons and days. Not hours, minutes and seconds. History meant births, deaths and maybe major battles, like the Little Big Horn. There are petroglyphs scattered around North America where certain are carved in stone. Though the meanings have been lost to time.
Quote:

Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.

1.This is a hard one to deal with. I would love to say yes it was all the White Man's fault, my rational side won't let me.
2. Poor communication and lack of understanding probably on both sides but this one I will lay at the White Man's door.
3. Don't get me started on this one. Yes, the missionaries played heavily into it. Lazy Indians, heathens. We must convert them to our God, and our way of doing things. Groundwork for destruction of cultures and families that are trying to rebuild to this day. My own have first hand knowledge of the residential school system in the US. This one is all the White Man.
4.There would have been much discussion between Dakota, Cheyenne and mine before the Little Big Horn and it was successful. There would have been a hiercharchy there. Tecumseh tried to gather a coalition in the east to deal with the White Man but he couldn't get the tribes to stop long enough to see the threat.
Quote:

Thanks in advance for your response. Often, it seems each "side" blames the other for breaking the treaties, "Indian giving", "land theft", and forced migration to "reservations" and such; and I wonder how much of it was truly evil and greed, and how much was monumental gaps in communication.

You're welcome. My feelings are that most of the treaties broken were done by the White Man. I think the phrase "Indian giving" came about because we didn't have "property rights". Sorry, I consider what happened "land theft". The reservations were forced, and that came from the fact that few tribes stayed in one place all year. We followed the herds for hunting and even the fishing tribes on the West coast moved to other areas when they knew certain fish would be running. And once we got our hands on guns.
The Black Hills was greed. Gold! Gold in them there hills! Dang Injuns sitting on it and don't know what it's worth. Gotta get it.

I apologize for that last bit it is snide but it is how I feel.

Now that finally looks better - I can read it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belittle their ideals, actions, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pat is not the only example, merely a more visible one.
We are here due to our love of a Hollywood production. Recall that Hollywood was in many regards rationed due to the large number of Hollywood personnel who left to serve in WWII. A great many of them did so of their own will.

No snark at all. It's what I believe.

I dont know who Pat Tillman is, what he has done and nor have I made any reference to him to be able to belittle him. I have no idea what you are talking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belittle their ideals, actions, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pat is not the only example, merely a more visible one.
We are here due to our love of a Hollywood production. Recall that Hollywood was in many regards rationed due to the large number of Hollywood personnel who left to serve in WWII. A great many of them did so of their own will.

No snark at all. It's what I believe.

How atrocious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Due to weird editing, I need to quote this and edit it just to be able to read it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!

I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.

Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)

I'll take a stab at answering you.But you must remember that though I think of myself as an American Indian, I must state that I am not pure blood.

I meet few pure bloods anymore, even multi-Nation Pure Native.
Quote:
Quote:

My understandings have come from my family and looking at the history critically.
1. There was fighting here amongst the tribes but not complete destruction of tribes to my knowledge. The White Man did however introduce scalping to America.

Are you disputing that entire Tribes/Nations/Races were wiped out by other Tribes prior to 1492?
Quote:
Quote:

2. We knew the land as we lived on it but "land ownership" was not known to us. Tribes had territories that they moved around for hunting purposes especially when you speak of the prairie tribes like the Dakota, Cheyenne and such.

Did they not also move to avoid certain other warring Tribe?
Quote:
Quote:

3. Most histories were oral and they said we have been here since the beginning of time. Time for us meant the movement of the seasons and days. Not hours, minutes and seconds. History meant births, deaths and maybe major battles, like the Little Big Horn. There are petroglyphs scattered around North America where certain are carved in stone. Though the meanings have been lost to time.

Yes, and this lack of experience with the pitfalls of written language left them at disadvantage. Like a modern day layman (Native) signing a contract with a lawyer (White Man).

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.

1.This is a hard one to deal with. I would love to say yes it was all the White Man's fault, my rational side won't let me.

Thank you. I did suspect you to be worthy of entering discussion with.

Quote:
Quote:

2. Poor communication and lack of understanding probably on both sides but this one I will lay at the White Man's door.
3. Don't get me started on this one. Yes, the missionaries played heavily into it. Lazy Indians, heathens. We must convert them to our God, and our way of doing things. Groundwork for destruction of cultures and families that are trying to rebuild to this day. My own have first hand knowledge of the residential school system in the US. This one is all the White Man.

I'm not sure I can argue. However, keep in mind this has been done the world over, and it was the religious zealotry which was the reason most immigrants left Yurp and colonized in America. Native Americans are not the sole victims of Religious Missionary work, and have survived far more intact than some. Perhaps some Natives can keep in mind that not all Whites support the Missionaries, but merely tolerate them (or support them by directive, under orders).

Quote:
Quote:

4.There would have been much discussion between Dakota, Cheyenne and mine before the Little Big Horn and it was successful. There would have been a hiercharchy there. Tecumseh tried to gather a coalition in the east to deal with the White Man but he couldn't get the tribes to stop long enough to see the threat.
Quote:

Thanks in advance for your response. Often, it seems each "side" blames the other for breaking the treaties, "Indian giving", "land theft", and forced migration to "reservations" and such; and I wonder how much of it was truly evil and greed, and how much was monumental gaps in communication.

You're welcome. My feelings are that most of the treaties broken were done by the White Man.

I think many Natives agree with you, or have been told the same as you. I suspect that many of the Whites have argued that the treaties were already voided by language/actions which the Natives did not fully understand as being breaches. The specifics which I become aware of seem to go both ways.

Quote:
Quote:

I think the phrase "Indian giving" came about because we didn't have "property rights". Sorry, I consider what happened "land theft".

I think your viewpoint is reasonable. As I mentioned, the lack of Native concept of land ownership, and the assumption by Whites that it existed, left Natives without benefit. Great misunderstandings here, and you must also see how it became an accurate phrase for what the Whites viewed as a breach of contract, or reversal of previous agreement, or reverse-trade.

Quote:
Quote:

The reservations were forced, and that came from the fact that few tribes stayed in one place all year. We followed the herds for hunting and even the fishing tribes on the West coast moved to other areas when they knew certain fish would be running. And once we got our hands on guns.
The Black Hills was greed. Gold! Gold in them there hills! Dang Injuns sitting on it and don't know what it's worth. Gotta get it.

I apologize for that last bit it is snide but it is how I feel.

Now that finally looks better - I can read it.

I had meant to mention, the Natives were able to practice nomadic existence due to a vast expanse of land in which the Whites encroached. The great reduction in available resources did cause great friction, in many ways, for many groups.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:24 AM

why the double?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belittle their ideals, actions, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pat is not the only example, merely a more visible one.
We are here due to our love of a Hollywood production. Recall that Hollywood was in many regards rationed due to the large number of Hollywood personnel who left to serve in WWII. A great many of them did so of their own will.

No snark at all. It's what I believe.

How atrocious.

You didn't finish your sentence. "How atrocious, you don't agree with me"

Carry on, Colonel Blimp

^that was a snark

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:17 PM

Attempting to edit for readablility.

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Due to weird editing, I need to quote this and edit it just to be able to read it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!

I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.

Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)

I'll take a stab at answering you.But you must remember that though I think of myself as an American Indian, I must state that I am not pure blood.
I meet few pure bloods anymore, even multi-Nation Pure Native.

I've known a few pure bloods up here and some people like me, mixed-blood.
Quote:
Quote:

My understandings have come from my family and looking at the history critically.
1. There was fighting here amongst the tribes but not complete destruction of tribes to my knowledge. The White Man did however introduce scalping to America.

Are you disputing that entire Tribes/Nations/Races were wiped out by other Tribes prior to 1492?

No. I can't dispute that or the fact that slaves were taken in the fighting. Though to my understanding the slaves could win or were eventually adopted into the tribe that took them.
Quote:
Quote:

2. We knew the land as we lived on it but "land ownership" was not known to us. Tribes had territories that they moved around for hunting purposes especially when you speak of the prairie tribes like the Dakota, Cheyenne and such.

Did they not also move to avoid certain other warring Tribe?

Yes, that happened as well.
Quote:
Quote:

3. Most histories were oral and they said we have been here since the
beginning of time. Time for us meant the movement of the seasons and days. Not hours, minutes and seconds. History meant births, deaths and maybe major battles, like the Little Big Horn. There are petroglyphs scattered around North America where certain are carved in stone. Though the meanings have been lost to time.

Yes, and this lack of experience with the pitfalls of written language left them at disadvantage. Like a modern day layman (Native) signing a contract with a lawyer (White Man).

It did.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.

1.This is a hard one to deal with. I would love to say yes it was all the White Man's fault, my rational side won't let me.

Thank you. I did suspect you to be worthy of entering discussion with.

I'm not sure if I should appreciate this remark or be insulted. You see I feel that at times I have to see both sides of the picture because of my family's history. Though I feel far more Indian now than I did when I was a teenager.

If I had not suspected you of having a rational side, I would not have bother to attempt this exchange. I did not intend insult. You should not sense insult.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

2. Poor communication and lack of understanding probably on both sides but this one I will lay at the White Man's door.
3. Don't get me started on this one. Yes, the missionaries played heavily into it. Lazy Indians, heathens. We must convert them to our God, and our way of doing things. Groundwork for destruction of cultures and families that are trying to rebuild to this day. My own have first hand knowledge of the residential school system in the US. This one is all the White Man.

I'm not sure I can argue. However, keep in mind this has been done the world over, and it was the religious zealotry which was the reason most immigrants left Yurp and colonized in America. Native Americans are not the sole victims of Religious Missionary work, and have survived far more intact than some. Perhaps some Natives can keep in mind that not all Whites support the Missionaries, but merely tolerate them (or support them by directive, under orders).

I know it has been done the world over and it is true about the first colonists, and what led them here. The comment that we in North America survived more intact, I find debatable.

Some civilizations are extinct due to religious Missionary work. My comparison was that Native Americans have survived more intact than those who became extinct. I intended not consolation, perhaps commiseration.

Quote:

Tribes here have worked hard to regain languages and family structures, to teach the children of the children who were taken away to the residential schools. True but following orders is a lame excuse, to my way of thinking.
Quote:
Quote:

4.There would have been much discussion between Dakota, Cheyenne and mine before the Little Big Horn and it was successful. There would have been a hiercharchy there. Tecumseh tried to gather a coalition in the east to deal with the White Man but he couldn't get the tribes to stop long enough to see the threat.
Quote:

Thanks in advance for your response. Often, it seems each "side" blames the other for breaking the treaties, "Indian giving", "land theft", and forced migration to "reservations" and such; and I wonder how much of it was truly evil and greed, and how much was monumental gaps in communication.

You're welcome. My feelings are that most of the treaties broken were done by the White Man.

I think many Natives agree with you, or have been told the same as you. I suspect that many of the Whites have argued that the treaties were already voided by language/actions which the Natives did not fully understand as being breaches. The specifics which I become aware of seem to go both ways.
Quote:

I think the phrase "Indian giving" came about because we didn't have "property rights". Sorry, I consider what happened "land theft".

I think your viewpoint is reasonable. As I mentioned, the lack of Native concept of land ownership, and the assumption by Whites that it existed, left Natives without benefit. Great misunderstandings here, and you must also see how it became an accurate phrase for what the Whites viewed as a breach of contract, or reversal of previous agreement, or reverse-trade.

I can see how the Whites viewed and the Indians.
Quote:
Quote:

The reservations were forced, and that came from the fact that few tribes stayed in one place all year. We followed the herds for hunting and even the fishing tribes on the West coast moved to other areas when they knew certain fish would be running. And once we got our hands on guns.
The Black Hills was greed. Gold! Gold in them there hills! Dang Injuns sitting on it and don't know what it's worth. Gotta get it.

I apologize for that last bit it is snide but it is how I feel.

I had meant to mention, the Natives were able to practice nomadic existence due to a vast expanse of land in which the Whites encroached. The great reduction in available resources did cause great friction, in many ways, for many groups.

Reservations didn't help either. Forcing tribes that warred onto the same piece of ground also caused friction.

Agreed, but this admission lays bare the falsehood that all Tribes/Nations were peaceful.

Thank you for responding. Your views seem to mesh with much of what I have come to understand. I had been wondering if there were glaring holes in my comprehension or knowledge base. Too bad you and I, or others like us, were not the arbiters or negotiators involved for the past few centuries.

If you wish to elaborate on more, feel free. I appreciate the time you have taken.

I just considered: Do your people largely group all whites together with this distrust, or do you separate between America and it's predecessors? I am not nearly as caught up on treaties with Mexico, Brits, French, Spanish.

Folks in Hollywood make much money from "sitcoms" derived from "miscommunication" and some of history is filled with the same. On TV, hilarity ensues. In history, not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Sort of off topic: I love Toronto.

Carry on.

I've never been to Toronto. So I know nothing about the city except what I have read and seen on tv.

I learned from Canadian Bacon that Toronto is the Capitol of Canada.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Sort of off topic: I love Toronto.

Carry on.

I've never been to Toronto. So I know nothing about the city except what I have read and seen on tv.

I learned from Canadian Bacon that Toronto is the Capitol of Canada.

Okay, first off Toronto likes to think it is the capitol of Canada but it's not. That distinction falls to Ottawa. Same province of Ontario but that's all.

If you have not seen Canadian Bacon, you should.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 18, 2014 6:31 PM

America loves a winner!

It needed to be done. Surprised it wasn't done already.

You're welcome.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:28 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

More on Japanese internment of Western civilians during the war: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29665232

A useful comparison for those tempted by moral equivalence with regards to the internment of Japanese Americans.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:20 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More on Japanese internment of Western civilians during the war: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29665232

A useful comparison for those tempted by moral equivalence with regards to the internment of Japanese Americans.

One of the under taught ( ignored ) parts of WW2 history. I knew of " some " folks who found themselves in camps, but had no idea it was so wide spread.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 19, 2014 3:33 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More on Japanese internment of Western civilians during the war: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29665232

A useful comparison for those tempted by moral equivalence with regards to the internment of Japanese Americans.

One of the under taught ( ignored ) parts of WW2 history. I knew of " some " folks who found themselves in camps, but had no idea it was so wide spread.

Especially in Japan...

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:36 PM

if you are interested in that part of history, I can recommend a couple of films -

Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085933/
Paradise Road http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119859/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
The Railway Man http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2058107/?ref_=nv_sr_1
A Town Like Alice http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049871/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I love A Town Called Alice, such a beautiful poignant film - an early look at how war changes people when such things were usually not acknowledged.

I am assuming that this part of history is more well known here, from some of your comments.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:49 PM

I hope not too many are downplaying the treason committed by "Japanese-Americans" against the United States, and for Imperial Japan.
Which was why the internment camps were established, to isolate potential traitors. Unfortunately, there were no Democrat camps to isolate the Democrat traitors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:56 PM

You're a bit of a 'one idea only' fella, aren't you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:11 PM

I also loved Paradise Road, although it copped criticism for being racist in the US for its depiction of the Japanese - another indication that KPO's creep factor is that some of the stuff that appears to be new news in the US 'geez, the Japanese were shitty to prisoners during ww2' is old news here.

Like A Town Called Alice, it's about the experiences of women in prisoner of war camps.

Interestingly enough, the Man Booker Prize (a very prominent literary prize' has been won by Richard Flanagan for his novel "The Narrow Road to Deep North' based on his father's experience on the Burma Railway. http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/richard-flanagan/the-narrow-road-t
o-the-deep-north-9780857980366.aspx

Sadly, I struggled to get through this novel, but I will try again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2014 12:16 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

More attention in Britain and the US is given to the war in Europe, which was the main theatre of war for those countries. I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe, so naturally the war against the Japanese is what is most remembered there. But that's not to say Japanese atrocities against Brits and Americans are forgotten, or 'new' - they're not.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2014 3:50 PM

America loves a winner!

Outside of Peal Harbor, Midway and Iwo Jima, about the only thing anyone is taught of the Pacific theatre are possibly the Flying Tigers.

And dropping the first atomic bombs, of course.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2014 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More attention in Britain and the US is given to the war in Europe, which was the main theatre of war for those countries. I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe, so naturally the war against the Japanese is what is most remembered there. But that's not to say Japanese atrocities against Brits and Americans are forgotten, or 'new' - they're not.

It's not personal. It's just war.

God your knowledge of history is pretty shitty. A quick Google search will give you this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_Worl
d_War_II

Australians fought in Europe, North Africa and the Pacific, along with New Zealanders, Canadians and many other soldiers from the 'British Empire'. From 1939 as well, in case you dont realise that the war started for everyone else then. In fact one of the controversy's of the war for us is that Churchill prevented Australian soldiers from returning to Australia from the European 'arena' to protect Australia when the Japanese invasion threat became imminent (Darwin was bombed) despite the request from our then Prime Minister.

British casualities from the Burma railway were exceedingly high, so I believe that it's well known in the UK as well.

One of the pissy things about many mainstream films is that it appears that only Americans fought in WW2, which I believe adds to the messiah complex demonstrated by some on this board.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2014 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outside of Peal Harbor, Midway and Iwo Jima, about the only thing anyone is taught of the Pacific theatre are possibly the Flying Tigers.

And dropping the first atomic bombs, of course.

And where did the Japanese fly to get to Pearl, over my home province of British Columbia. Which at that time had many a military target on the coast. BC's coast was covered by our military to protect it.

We were chosen as a fly-over for their bombers to avoid your radar.

Japanese bombers, in 1941, flying over British Columbia to get to Hawaii base Pearl Harbor?
Got any cites? Further info? Not sure I've heard of this, or that it makes any sense. Seems like it would be beyond fuel range for any bomber in 1941. Were these land-based or Carrier-based bombers?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2014 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More attention in Britain and the US is given to the war in Europe, which was the main theatre of war for those countries. I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe, so naturally the war against the Japanese is what is most remembered there. But that's not to say Japanese atrocities against Brits and Americans are forgotten, or 'new' - they're not.

God your knowledge of history is pretty shitty. A quick Google search will give you this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_Worl
d_War_II

Australians fought in Europe, North Africa and the Pacific, along with New Zealanders, Canadians and many other soldiers from the 'British Empire'. From 1939 as well, in case you dont realise that the war started for everyone else then. In fact one of the controversy's of the war for us is that Churchill prevented Australian soldiers from returning to Australia from the European 'arena' to protect Australia when the Japanese invasion threat became imminent (Darwin was bombed) despite the request from our then Prime Minister.

British casualities from the Burma railway were exceedingly high, so I believe that it's well known in the UK as well.

One of the pissy things about many mainstream films is that it appears that only Americans fought in WW2, which I believe adds to the messiah complex demonstrated by some on this board.

In case you are interested, here are a few thoughts.
The media coverage from Yurp was much more reliable, timely, consistent, and quantitative. Communications across the vast Pacific was troublesome, both for the military and the media. Island-hopping meant that weeks could go by without news, or action, while covering one mile in Yurp could be followed day by day by anybody with a map or memory from WWI. The foreign names of Pacific Islands also made it hard for many to find on a map or in their memory.

One thing that American military has held to is unit cohesion. Few other countries had entire Armies assembled, ready to mesh with the flanking Army next to them, with the same weapons, practices, training. Films showing a mish-mash of nationalities in combat make it harder for dim audiences to follow. Hope you know by now that Hollywood dumbs down everything, mashes 20 people into one character, and homogenizes at every step possible.

I'm not trying to rationalize or apologize, but if you didn't already know these factors, it might help you to understand. Those who know history see these things, they are not trying to demean or belittle the efforts and sacrifices of those who served. Even in America, I was not taught and did not know about the Navajo Code Talkers until I was already in the Marine Corps. There are many incidents like this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:23 AM

America loves a winner!

That would be really odd if they chose that route to get to Hawaii.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:51 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
God your knowledge of history is pretty shitty. A quick Google search will give you this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_Worl
d_War_II

Well, your ability to google trumps my knowledge of history - but not your ability to read, apparently. From your link:

Quote:
While most Australian forces were withdrawn from the Mediterranean following the outbreak of war in the Pacific, they continued to take part in large numbers in the air offensive against Germany. From 1942 until early 1944, Australian forces played a key role in the Pacific War, making up the majority of Allied strength throughout much of the fighting in the South West Pacific. The military was largely relegated to subsidiary fronts from mid-1944, but continued offensive operations against the Japanese until the war ended.

Pretty much what I was saying - most Australian fighting took place in the war against Japan. Elsewhere in the Wiki article it even says: "relatively few Australians fought in Europe during World War II".

If I was going to correct someone, and be an arse about it, I would make sure I got my facts straight. But that's just me.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:45 PM

if I were you, I'd stop trying to argue, because, man are you bad at it. I've never seen someone slip and slide quite like you.

You said "I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe,'

So buddy, yes they did as you yourself have just validated by your quote from the article I linked.

But keep arguing yourself into your ditch AGAIN.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Actually just saw this last night - what a powerful film. I didn't think there was much chemistry between Kidman and Firth at first, but I think that's because they felt they needed to get to the other story pretty quickly. In the end the film made a big impression - definitely recommend.
FWIW: plenty of US know about Japan, both their brutality and our confinement of them in WWII.
In terms of now, I'm a fan of Japanese architecture and fashion and food, and that's my contribution.

Now, back to the thread!

I read a little of the true story, it seems he already had a family when he met the character Kidman based, so they did kind of rush through the relationship stuff. But yes, very powerful.

An interesting history too. My son has been studying the Restoration of the Meiji.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That would be really odd if they chose that route to get to Hawaii.

As I already said to JSF. I apologize for my error. My mother wasn't the only buying into the hysteria of a Japanese attack on Canadian soil.

Lotta hysteria on the West coast w/ regards to the Japanese during the war.

Ever see the Spielberg comedy, 1941 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_(film)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:17 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
You said "I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe,'

That's a statement and a question. The statement is that I don't think many Australian regiments fought in Europe. And Wiki agrees with me:

"...relatively few Australians fought in Europe during World War II".

Regiment, of course, means army - and what was the extent of the Australian army's fight in Europe? A 3 week campaign in Greece.

So tell me again why what I said was wrong?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:12 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:

Yes, there was. Sadly.

Another film I have heard of but not seen. Comedy and movies about war not a good mix in my opinon.

Point taken, but if you can't laugh with former enemies turned friends about the past, then it makes wounds tougher to heal. Time helps too, of course. Just a thought.

And ever heard of Hogan's Heroes ?

Same sort of idea.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:23 PM

1941 - great movie with 2 of the sexiest gals of the era ... Dianne Kay & Nancy Allen.

A few other great war comedies :

Kelly's Heroes
M.A.S.H.
Teahouse of the August Moon
Mr. Roberts
McHale's Navy
Good Morning Viet Nam

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 22, 2014 8:11 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Blackadder 4 is a good one, looks at the tragic absurdity of WW1. And what is comedy about, if not absurdity?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:34 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

It's not to everyone's taste (as with most British humour), but this series in particular had a serious message about war (the 4 series were set in 4 different periods of history), and was probably the funniest. Certainly it's the most well-loved.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:26 AM

The first season of Blackadder is pretty average, I didn't really like it, but then Ben Elton came on board as a writer and it just took off from there. It really is a terrific series, and yes, very poignant in the last series, especially the last episode which was brilliant, ground breaking stuff.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:13 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Well the character he plays in Blackadder is close to the opposite of Mr Bean... though I can see why a dislike of Mr Bean would put you off.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

A few other great war comedies :

Kelly's Heroes
M.A.S.H.
Teahouse of the August Moon
Mr. Roberts
McHale's Navy
Good Morning Viet Nam

I love Mr Roberts. I find Hogan's Heroes a bit wrong these days, but I loved it when I was a kid. MASH the movie is very dark and pretty misogynist, but the series was fun.

What about Life is Beautiful, a comedy about a concentration camp. A fab film that is both funny and tragic. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118799/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

What about Life is Beautiful, a comedy about a concentration camp. A fab film that is both funny and tragic.

Life Is Beautiful, along with Seven Beauties, and Jakob The Liar are movies that try to find humor during the Holocaust. Even Schindler's List has some comedic moments in it. I think Jakob The Liar is a great Robin Williams movie on many levels. Seven Beauties, with Giancarlo Giannini, is great too.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 24, 2014 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I also loved Paradise Road, although it copped criticism for being racist in the US for its depiction of the Japanese - another indication that KPO's creep factor is that some of the stuff that appears to be new news in the US 'geez, the Japanese were shitty to prisoners during ww2' is old news here.

Like A Town Called Alice, it's about the experiences of women in prisoner of war camps.

Interestingly enough, the Man Booker Prize (a very prominent literary prize' has been won by Richard Flanagan for his novel "The Narrow Road to Deep North' based on his father's experience on the Burma Railway. http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/richard-flanagan/the-narrow-road-t
o-the-deep-north-9780857980366.aspx

Sadly, I struggled to get through this novel, but I will try again.

The fact that the Japanese were crap to POWs is not new news in Canada.

I've never read any books on POW experiences in the Asian theatre during WW2. Maybe I should try expanding my knowledge.

he stories are far fewer, largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 24, 2014 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
1941 - great movie with 2 of the sexiest gals of the era ... Dianne Kay & Nancy Allen.

A few other great war comedies :

Kelly's Heroes
M.A.S.H.
Teahouse of the August Moon
Mr. Roberts
McHale's Navy
Good Morning Viet Nam

Wow. Remind me to never, ever, take your movie recommendations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 24, 2014 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

What about Life is Beautiful, a comedy about a concentration camp. A fab film that is both funny and tragic.

Life Is Beautiful, along with Seven Beauties, and Jakob The Liar are movies that try to find humor during the Holocaust. Even Schindler's List has some comedic moments in it. I think Jakob The Liar is a great Robin Williams movie on many levels. Seven Beauties, with Giancarlo Giannini, is great too.

I found "Schindler's List" to be a very good film.

I don't consider Schindler's to be comedy. I would think of Catch-22, but that might be too America-centric for others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 24, 2014 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Remind me to never, ever, take your movie recommendations.

Nice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 25, 2014 4:14 AM

OONJERAH

Quote JewelStaitFan: [T]he stories are far fewer, largely due to there being no survivors
of most Japanese POWs.

There were survivors, but I was too young to be one. My young-20's BF was son of a
Japanese POW. So this is 3rd hand, FWIW. He was on a sub reconnoitering a Japanese
river. They were spotted and the whole crew captured. Dunno how many guys were on
a WWII sub. They spent more than half the war as POWs. 8 of them survived & came
home. Of those 8, BF claims that his Dad was the only one who was not crazy, not a
drunk, not a suicide. It was harsh.

Otoh, I gather the Germans followed the Geneva Convention on that.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

Part of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

... largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.

No survivors? Where'd ya come up with that? The survival rate for American POWs held by the Japanese was 67%. The survival rate for British POW's was 75%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
[
he stories are far fewer, largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.

That's just not true, not even remotely true.

Many, many Australians and Brits returned after the war from POW camps.
http://hellfire-pass.commemoration.gov.au/after-the-war/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

... largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.

No survivors? Where'd ya come up with that? The survival rate for American POWs held by the Japanese was 67%. The survival rate for British POW's was 75%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war

Your link only mentions those in POW camps. No mention of Bushido that I see there. Those beheaded after capture are not listed. Have more info?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:47 PM

Just admit you are misinformed on this one. There were plenty of survivors, hence we are able to read accounts of what happened in the camps.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:51 PM