Why do East Asians still hold grudges against Japan?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the question isn't whether they'd be better off. it's whether or not capitalism has contributed to the ills of korea, and the answer to that is yes.

Sorry Q. I was with you right up until this.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The fact that they were strategic in no way mitigates that the economically valuable (with the exception of the German islands). Both Korea and Taiwan were very rich colonies.

The fact that they ended up being economically valuable in no way mitigates the fact that they were conquered because of their strategic value and for the prestige an empire bestowed on a newly powerful Japan, not for economic reasons.

Empires don't just happen and countries don't go on colony grabbing sprees just to have them. Colonies are taken for two reasons. One, for economic reasons, and two, to protect someplaceIf the colony fails to meet either of those two criteria, it is less than useless, it is a drain.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Sorry Q. I was with you right up until this.

You think capitalism had nothing to do with it being grabbed and raped by Japan? You think capitalism had nothing to do with the Rhee dictatorship? You think capitalism has nothing to do with police busting strikers' heads?

Capitalism is not benevolent. It comes at a great cost, especially in its early phases.

[Drake Tungsten]

Empires don't just happen and countries don't go on colony grabbing sprees just to have them.

How do you explain the rush for colonies in Africa, then? I can't think of a better example of empires snatching up colonies just to have them...

One, for economic reasons, and two, to protect someplace

Why'd the Germans have colonies in the middle of the Pacific, then? It couldn't be because they wanted some prestige, but those were the only spots left, could it? No they obviously wanted the Carolines in order to protect Berlin and engage in the valuable bread fruit trade.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Empires don't just happen and countries don't go on colony grabbing sprees just to have them.

How do you explain the rush for colonies in Africa, then? I can't think of a better example of empires snatching up colonies just to have them...

Come on Drake. You don't seriously believe that do you.

The European invasions into Africa were very much driven by economics. Just look at the Belgium Congo. King Leopold went in there to get rich. Initially it belonged to him, not the Belgium state.

The English invasion of India was started by a trading company. Hong Kong was taken for business reasons. The Dutch East Indies was taken for spice.

China was carved up for purely trade reasons from the Brits to the Americans to the Japanese.

The Germans took islands in the Pacific so that they could establish coaling stations for their ships, cargo ships and military ships to protect the cargo ships.

Money drove the colonies, and when it started to cost too much money to maintain the colonies, the Europeans pulled out.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Empires don't just happen and countries don't go on colony grabbing sprees just to have them.

How do you explain the rush for colonies in Africa, then? I can't think of a better example of empires snatching up colonies just to have them...

Africa is full of vaulable minerals. King Leopold of Belgium gained immense wealth from his rape of the Congo. Africa was, and is still, a very good place to invest and gain wealth. Did you know that most of the flowers sold in the US come from African farms? Chocolate and coffee are both extensively cultivated there, as was rubber. Africa was so damn useful that Europe fought WWI over it.

One, for economic reasons, and two, to protect someplace

Why'd the Germans have colonies in the middle of the Pacific, then? It couldn't be because they wanted some prestige, but those were the only spots left, could it? No they obviously wanted the Carolines in order to protect Berlin and engage in the valuable bread fruit trade.

Coaling and water stations for their navy and merchant fleet. You need a navy to protect your merchants, and you need a place for them to stop and get fuel, food, and water. Germany had concessions in China, so the Pacific islands were rather useful.

[Drake Tungsten]

Africa was, and is still, a very good place to invest and gain wealth. Did you know that most of the flowers sold in the US come from African farms? Chocolate and coffee are both extensively cultivated there, as was rubber.

Again, just because parts of Africa became economically valuable doesn't mean that the colonies were taken for economic reasons. Look at the British possessions, for example. They took more land than they could ever hope to utilize, just to keep it out of the hands of rival European powers. It didn't make good economic sense, but they did it anyway because of political reasons.

Africa was so damn useful that Europe fought WWI over it.

That must be the Marxist interpretation, which would explain why I've never heard it before.

Germany had concessions in China, so the Pacific islands were rather useful.

If all they wanted were coaling stations, why did they take so many islands? One chain would've been more than sufficient and a more economically sound investment.

[Drake Tungsten]

Come on Drake. You don't seriously believe that do you.

The European invasions into Africa were very much driven by economics. Just look at the Belgium Congo. King Leopold went in there to get rich. Initially it belonged to him, not the Belgium state.

The English invasion of India was started by a trading company. Hong Kong was taken for business reasons. The Dutch East Indies was taken for spice.

China was carved up for purely trade reasons from the Brits to the Americans to the Japanese.

There's only one reference to Africa in that whole mess. Why don't you explain why Britain wanted all the land from Cape Town to Cairo? Or why Germany thought Namibia was a a worthwhile endeavor?

[mindseye]

If all they (the Germans) wanted were coaling stations, why did they take so many islands? One chain would've been more than sufficient and a more economically sound investment.

Dont' forget the range of coal-fuelled ships in the 19th century. You needed lots of coaling and re-supplying stations to carry on (and adequately protect) the kind of international and colonial maritime trade that Germany had its sights on.

[MrFun]

Chegitz, I take you read the excellent book, "King Leopold's Ghost?"

I thought it was a great historical account of Belgium's involvement with the Congo region's peoples.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I can hear that in Nara, but with some excellent scenery to go with it.

WHAT ! You're in Nara but you haven't post pictures yet ?!?!?!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Chegitz, I take you read the excellent book, "King Leopold's Ghost?"

I thought it was a great historical account of Belgium's involvement with the Congo region's peoples.

I've heard of it, and I heard the author speak on NPR, but I have not read it. One can only take so much genocide, you know.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Africa was, and is still, a very good place to invest and gain wealth. Did you know that most of the flowers sold in the US come from African farms? Chocolate and coffee are both extensively cultivated there, as was rubber.

Again, just because parts of Africa became economically valuable doesn't mean that the colonies were taken for economic reasons. Look at the British possessions, for example. They took more land than they could ever hope to utilize, just to keep it out of the hands of rival European powers. It didn't make good economic sense, but they did it anyway because of political reasons.

England wantd to be able to build a railroad from Cairo to Cape Town. To do that, you need all the land in between under your control.

Europe may not have known what specifically they were getting when they carved up Africa at the 1885 Berlin Conference, but they had every expectation that they would be making money out of it. Very little interior exploration had been done by Europeans, but they figured, rightly, that there was plenty of wealth to be plundered.

Africa was so damn useful that Europe fought WWI over it.

That must be the Marxist interpretation, which would explain why I've never heard it before.

The first person to advance that idea was actually W.E.B. DuBois, before he became a Marxist. Marxists also agree with it. Explaining it would be rather lengthy, but it comes down to Germany wanting more colonies and using the crisis in the Balkans as an opportunity to take France's colonies. Consider carefuly the fact that WWI almost started in 1905, when France and Germany almost went to war over Morocco.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The first person to advance that idea was actually W.E.B. DuBois, before he became a Marxist. Marxists also agree with it. Explaining it would be rather lengthy, but it comes down to Germany wanting more colonies and using the crisis in the Balkans as an opportunity to take France's colonies. Consider carefuly the fact that WWI almost started in 1905, when France and Germany almost went to war over Morocco.

I don't think it is that simple. There have been many colonial crises (Fashoda, Morocco) between European powers which have always been solved by diplomacy so far. There is no doubt German imperialism pushed for war, but I highly doubt it is the first reason.

For once, it was a surprise that all the Allies would go to war. Austria-Hungary didn't expect the Russians to go to war over Serbia (AH was looking for its own intra-European imperialism at that time), and the Germans didn't expect the French to mobilize. The only ones who didn't act according to their alliances were the British, who only joined the war in 1915.

The German mobilization can be seen as a "preventive war" against Russia before it finished its quick industrialization, and before the French - Russian alliance could crush Germany sandwich like (this is only one of the many possible reasons). The French mobilization can clearly be seen in the light of the French ubernationalism of the time, and the feeling of revenge for the 1871 war and the loss of Alsace. The Russian mobilization can be seen in the light of Russia's imperialist interests in the Balkans now that the Ottoman empire was waning.

Sure, Imperialism was a key factor in the beginnings of WW1. But the African colonization was not, or very little. Besides, Africa was a nearly inexistent theater of operations, with only a few fights in Cameroon.

[Drake Tungsten]

WHAT ! You're in Nara but you haven't post pictures yet ?!?!?!

I don't have many good pictures to post right now. I've visited Todaiji and Kasuga Jinja already, but I went at night during the Lantern Festival and therefore have no pictures.@I did take some decent picture of Kokufuji and Todaiji on Monday from the roof of the Nara Prefectural Government building, however, so maybe I'll post them when I have time.