OT: Amelia Earhart?
- Thread starter SkilletHead2
- Start date
I guess that explains why you never thanked me for the book I bought for you and had shipped to New Zealand, never mind discussed it.
Too bad
You think veterans who fought against the Japanese don't still call them Japs?
It's just short for Japanese.
Like Ruskie for Russia or Brit for Britain, or Irish for Ireland, or Aussie for Australia or probably even Chink for China.
That word started off as an insult but is no longer consider one, it just means non-Japanese now.
For example: https://www.gaijinny.com/
If you fought in WW2, then you can say whatever the hell you want.
As with every other derogatory term, it's not up to them to decide whether it's offensive.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
"Japs" as an insult is almost as puzzling as Oriental as an insult...I mean most of us in the west are Occidentals (I realize no one uses the term) but it is essentially a directional term...when did it become "icky" to say?
Is it Asian rug now?
Is it Asian rug now?
it didn't but you've always got that sensitive one who creates an issue
Regardless, looks like an interesting show for sure
Japs.. Nips... both work.I think he meant Orientals.
We're talking about the Japanese military from WWII days... the same folks responsible later that year for the Rape of Nanking.. then later Pearl Harbor!
If you cannot use an abbreviation that might be construed as negative for them, when can you use one? Nazi is short for National Socialist, right? Anyone have a problem with the use of Nazi?
Last edited:
Art, My momma raised me better than that! (Unless you were kidding on the email.) I thanked you when you first offered to send the book, and again when it arrived a couple weeks later. And about six weeks after that I sent you an email that said I was into the book, and let's talk soon, and if you could send me your address, I'd reciprocate with a book about NZ. You didn't respond to the last email, but you did to the first two.I guess that explains why you never thanked me for the book I bought for you and had shipped to New Zealand, never mind discussed it.
And we're talking about the Japanese Army on those Islands in 1937. .. so it wasn't 1945 then either. If you want to consider the use of "Japs" as an insult then please also consider it as an insult to the Japanese Army of 1937-1945.. they deserve any insult they get.
Ha! He gave you a disposable email that he didn't monitor except to, every now and then, just DELETE ALL!
Now I'm not saying this is true but the records argument doesn't hold water. Most of the records on Japanese concentration camps were destroyed so their surviving soldiers couldn't be incriminated for war crimes. If she was held in one of these camps the records would have been destroyed.
Try reading one of their textbooks about the war from that period. You would think all prisoners stayed at 5 star hotels. Kinda like British textbooks, we didn't win our independence, they let us have it.
Last edited:
I have a problem with the use of japs. It's no different than any other racial slur and shouldn't be allowed here.
Why did you exclude the N word or the S word. Might as well go all the way at this point.
Because my Dad did fight in WWII, I have used the terms Japs and Nips when talking that time period and 100% meant it as a racist insult. But excuse my ignorance because I never knew that Britt, Irish(what is an Irishman supposed to be referred as?) or Aussie were racial slurs or have ever been considered so but ummmmm Chink also seems to be a derogatory racial slur. I am so confused now
The word "Jap" or "Nip" (as in Japanese or Nipponese) does not in itself covey a racist insult. As opposed to, say, the N-word. It was how those people were thought of by the greatest generation because of their actions.. that is what brought negative connotations to those terms.
And my Dad was a WWII Marine. He never talked about it. But use of the word "Jap" or "Japanese" had equal negative meanings. The way I used it was more nationalistic than racist. I would never use it today to talk about anyone from Japan or those of Japanese blood. Yes.. it would be insulting to do so because of what that earlier generation did.
In the context of this thread about 1937 and Earhart possibly being captured in that part of the world.. the use of "Japs" actually adds meaning and context lest you forget just how much nasty business they were responsible for.
Those people your old man hated? They don't live in Japan now. They did not emigrate here and live and work here now. They don't exist.
IMO hardly anyone calls someone from Japan in modern day society a Jap. (I certainly don't).
But if we are referring to people in Japan at the time of WW2, that is a different story.
And after reading up on their brutality, I would have hated them all. It is amazing how cruel they were, and maybe more amazing how younger generations can change from the older ones.
My point above wasn't to disparage or disrespect anyone. It was a different time, and very different circumstances.
The war in the Pacific was one of racial hatred on both sides. If you never saw the HBO series "The Pacific", a Hanks/Spielberg production, this is well illustrated there.
You should see the way that the Hanoi Hilton is shown here. Most of it's been torn down but the part left has pictures of American POWs playing chess and raising chickens.
You make it sound like we were just as bad as they were, so what they did was justified.
How many innocent people died horrible deaths for no reason in Dresden. War is horrible. We were the good guys and we were horrible beyond imagining.
Not my intention. That's not the way the war started eventhough there was a sense of racial superiority on our part. Many people in the military were convinced that the Germans had to have had a hand in Pearl Harbor because the Japanese weren't smart enough to plan it. Also many didn't worry about Japanese aviation because they thought they couldn't be good pilots because of the slanted eyes.
The brutality that the Imperial Army exhibited to Westerners, especially POWs, was vicious. Your odds of surviving as a POW were pretty slim. Also the mass killings of the native populations of the Philippines and on mainland China came close to rivaling the Nazis.
When we saw that they weren't giving any quarter we responded in kind.
And rightly so. The hatred people had for the Nazis came no where near the hatred Americans had for the Japanese.
We were no where near as bad. big difference berween outliers and systematic abuse
Dresden was bad but the fire bombings in japan were far worse and the japs deserved every bit of it
There is no innocence in all out war
Dresden was bad but the fire bombings in japan were far worse and the japs deserved every bit of it
There is no innocence in all out war
That's exactly my point. And Dresden was no outlier! Churchill even penned a memo questioning the brutality of the allied urban bpmbing. Churchill! Not exactly a nazi sympathist
We did what had to be done. End of story
which are?
apparently you know very little about the war and when the most casualties were inflicted and how
you are not going to compare 98k (tokyo firebombing) and 120k(Dresden) to 66(hiroshima) and 39(nagasaki) simply because it was one bomb are you?
that doesn't even include the saving of American lives
try
from Time
'By dawn, more than 100,000 people were dead, a million were homeless, and 40 square kilometers of Tokyo were burned to the ground. More people were killed in the Tokyo firebombing of March 9-10 than in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki five months later.'
Last edited:
Yes. We vaporized hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Believe me, I'm well aware of the horrors of our conventional bombing which is WHY i specifically mentioned Dresden first.
Nevertheless, do you feel good about using nuclear weapons on civilians? You can justify it, of course, but the fact remains those people were no more deserving of death than you or your family and we massacred them by the tens of thousands in the blink of an eye.
you are confusing different issues here in the context of a post view of world war
1. First of all, WE DID NOT vaporize hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Less and 100k died in both blasts. Those citizens were far from innocent as they worked in factories that supported the war effort, made clothes, food, etc etc that contributed to a war effort designed to defeat America. There was true evil in Japan and the entire culture needed a reset.
2. I feel GREAT about using Atomic weapons (not nuclear so please research the difference) as it saved both Japanese and AMERICAN lives the latter of which I really only care about. Of course you don't see or understand this because you only see 60k or so killed quickly vs the long protracted horrors of continued bombing, starvation, and war
people like you actually sicken me because you want to 'feel' your way around the history. We didn't massacre anyone, we destroyed the war making infrastructure that would have been used to prolong mass suffering and American casualties and ended the war far faster and more humane than what occurred in Germany
Explain why we HAD to destroy Dresden.
Everybody in a war thinks they're doing what must be done. Only little children think about war in terms of good guys and bad guys. Of course the Nazis were worse than us, but one must come to terms at the same time with the almost unspeakable savagery we unleashed to stop them.
But without them how many millions of Japanese would have died as the result of an invasion? Women were being taught to fight with spears and children were being shown how to throw themselves under tanks while wearing explosives. Military estimates would be that U.S. forces would have suffered a million casualties. The War Department ordered the manufacture of 500,000 Purple Hearts in anticipation of the invasion of the Home Islands.
Last edited:
First of all, my figure was in response to the entirety of the allied urban bombing campaigns, not just H and N.
Second of all, your claim that the attack saved lives is pure speculation. It's one of the most hotly debated historical questions so please don't pretend it is open and shut. Some historians think the Japanese would have surrendered after the Russians entered the war regardless.
But that is all totally beside the point. The fact that you feel "great" about it, even if you think it was necessary, is disgusting.
And Christ almighty your sense of who is guilty and innocent is ignorant beyond comprehension. The bombs killed indiscriminately. Young, old, men, women, children, babies. I don't give a crap if some poor schmuck is working in a factory or textile mill slaving away for the empire with no other choice. He doesn't "deserve" vaporization.
Take off your red white and blue colored glasses and try a little critical thinkng.