Talk:Hideki Kajimura: Difference between revisions
imported>Chunbum Park (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Chunbum Park No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== note about <nowiki>-xenophobic</nowiki> bias == | |||
I agree that "xenophobic" sounds a bit too strong, and the article's best in its current form because there is so little out there for us to develop the article with. The previous version of the article sounds prejudiced because it makes a claim without substantiating it with details (which we lack). Still, I think that it is not unneutral or inaccurate to state that the specific views that Mr. Kajimura challenged were anti-Korean. Now, I reject the nonsense from the Wikipedia's NPOV policy page that the authors can't determine if something is anti-etc or pro-etc & that the pro/anti tendency would gradually show up in the article & it's up to the readers to decide... having considered both sides of the argument. (That obviously failed in many of the Korea-Japan dispute articles.) For example, there's nothing wrong with this [http://www.biz.ryukoku.ac.jp/~lee/ronbun/gyouseki/pdf/2002_01-a_mistreated_minority_in_japan.pdf article], even if it is a treatment of negative subject. Also it's not even "disputed" (not something that you can take a position/side on) that certain aspects of Japanese nationalism is rooted in anti-Korean thinking. | |||
Not every Japanese is an ultranationalist (really only a small percentage today, but it seems to have been significant in 1950~80s when Mr. Kajimura was active), but the views that Mr. Kajimura challenged were specifically anti-Korean (and that's what he believed himself) & they were not limited to the issue of Dokdo (I'm not complaining about the Dokdo example though) & it is accurate terminology to describe Japanese ultranationalism as a form of xenophobic nationalism. | |||
These are some of the things that he wrote in his journal article, "The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo:" | |||
<blockquote> | |||
In any case, I was surprised to find that minuscule print on a map attached to a book triggered an enormously sensitive reaction. The readers tolerated a considerable part of the contents in my book which ran counter to the anti-foreign national feeling or understand- ing of Korea, but regarded it inadmissible to designate "Takeshima" as "Tokdo." | |||
.... | |||
To presume that the existence of Takeshima ~ Tokdo was not known to those people who lived and engaged in farming on Ullungdo for several hundred years is caused by a prejudice regarding Koreans as half-witted. | |||
... | |||
According to An' s statement, he claimed that both Ullungdo and Takeshima/Tokdo were Korean territory , and he pursued the Japanese and twice went over to Japan (Japanese records say that he was taken as a hostage the first time), and conducted negotiations by posing as a Korean government official, and received courteous treatment. I feel ashamed when reading Kawakami's articles which intentionally tried to belittle An Yong-bok ' s bold action. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 11:08, 9 March 2009
|
| Metadata here |
note about -xenophobic bias
I agree that "xenophobic" sounds a bit too strong, and the article's best in its current form because there is so little out there for us to develop the article with. The previous version of the article sounds prejudiced because it makes a claim without substantiating it with details (which we lack). Still, I think that it is not unneutral or inaccurate to state that the specific views that Mr. Kajimura challenged were anti-Korean. Now, I reject the nonsense from the Wikipedia's NPOV policy page that the authors can't determine if something is anti-etc or pro-etc & that the pro/anti tendency would gradually show up in the article & it's up to the readers to decide... having considered both sides of the argument. (That obviously failed in many of the Korea-Japan dispute articles.) For example, there's nothing wrong with this article, even if it is a treatment of negative subject. Also it's not even "disputed" (not something that you can take a position/side on) that certain aspects of Japanese nationalism is rooted in anti-Korean thinking.
Not every Japanese is an ultranationalist (really only a small percentage today, but it seems to have been significant in 1950~80s when Mr. Kajimura was active), but the views that Mr. Kajimura challenged were specifically anti-Korean (and that's what he believed himself) & they were not limited to the issue of Dokdo (I'm not complaining about the Dokdo example though) & it is accurate terminology to describe Japanese ultranationalism as a form of xenophobic nationalism.
These are some of the things that he wrote in his journal article, "The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo:"
In any case, I was surprised to find that minuscule print on a map attached to a book triggered an enormously sensitive reaction. The readers tolerated a considerable part of the contents in my book which ran counter to the anti-foreign national feeling or understand- ing of Korea, but regarded it inadmissible to designate "Takeshima" as "Tokdo." .... To presume that the existence of Takeshima ~ Tokdo was not known to those people who lived and engaged in farming on Ullungdo for several hundred years is caused by a prejudice regarding Koreans as half-witted.
...
According to An' s statement, he claimed that both Ullungdo and Takeshima/Tokdo were Korean territory , and he pursued the Japanese and twice went over to Japan (Japanese records say that he was taken as a hostage the first time), and conducted negotiations by posing as a Korean government official, and received courteous treatment. I feel ashamed when reading Kawakami's articles which intentionally tried to belittle An Yong-bok ' s bold action.
(Chunbum Park 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC))