Anti Japan protests in your town? 钓鱼岛

[xiaoxiaocao]

Looks like things are getting out of hand in some places. Hopefully we don't start seeing this country wide.

http://www.qdmama.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=738846

[liuzhou]

Just for those not aware, The China Daily Show website is basically like the Onion but for China-related events, and is not to be taken too seriously

Sadly, satire and facts are becoming indistinguishable.

[Scandinavian]

Sadly, satire and facts are becoming indistinguishable.

But the difference between a child not wanting to eat sushi and a crowd smashing a lot of Nissan's isn't really that different. Both are childish behavior that will not spawn any progress. The IQ of the angry mob is that of a child.

[liuzhou]

But the difference between a child not wanting to eat sushi and a crowd smashing a lot of Nissan's isn't really that different.

Er? Yes. That's the point. Well done. Good morning. It's called "satire".

[gato]

Yes, the Japanese government buying them was a calming measure, if the Tokyo guy had bought them things would have got a lot worse.

"Calming" for domestic Japanese politics perhaps, but it certainly has not been calming for anything else.

Are we sure that under the Japanese law, the national government was not allowed to forbid the Tokyo government from "purchasing" this land?

[imron]

I'm not sure, but even if that was legally an option, who knows how long it would have taken before they could have done that. Also, the Tokyo government had already raised some 1.4 billion yen (USD ~$17 million) for the project and was planning not just to buy the islands but also develop a port and docks there. The national government has stated that their purchase was intended to keep the status quo of not developing the islands. It's difficult to argue that this was not the better solution.

Edit: Also, it's not necessarily calming for domestic politics. The governor of Tokyo has been critical of the government's move to do this, criticising them for being afraid of China and spouting all sorts of other nationalistic nonsense.

[chaiknees]

It was comforting to me to read that not everybody supports the protesters' view:

http://www.ministryoftofu.com/2012/09/on-weibo-japanophobic-mobsters-are-far-from-the-majority/

[gato]

The national government has stated that their purchase was intended to keep the status quo of not developing the islands. It's difficult to argue that this was not the better solution.

But the national government instead of a local government taking action to change the legal status is arguably worse from the Chinese perspective.

Imagine if the situation were reversed and the Chinese government tried to "nationalize" the land, what do you think would happen then?

[realmayo]

Best thing is for the Japanese government to now lease them all to the US!

[Outofin]

If we're condemning mobs smashing cars, no disagreement. But on the real issue of the island's ownership, why so many foreigners seem to sincerely take Japan's side? I supposed other countries try to be indifferent and not involved.

[carlo]

why so many foreigners seem to sincerely take Japan's side? I supposed other countries try to be indifferent and not involved.

A good question, although I’m not sure how many they are.

My own family experienced Nazi camps. My wife is from an area that was under Japanese occupation. My feelings are 200% with China. Yet when Chinese protesters keep on framing these issues as 国耻, or attack random people in sushi bars, I think the rest of the world sees it as a personal matter: tit-for-tat, my country against your country, might is right. There’s no way out of this logic other than war. I wonder whether the narrative shouldn't be more about crimes against humanity. A subtle, but key difference. One that really shows what “soft power” is all about: getting other people to identify with your side.

Clearly there is no “fair” way to determine who an island belongs to, as international law is consent-based. What worries me more is whether the world will see the fundamental fairness of China’s claims.

[liuzhou]

That many foreigners see China's idiotic, nationalistic protests as immature, racist hatred whipped up by the party, does not mean that foreigners take Japan's side.

Both sides are being childishly wrong.

[xiaocai]

It is easy to point fingers. But if anyone does have any better ways of solving the dispute that will make all parties happy (and may actually work out, not something like "we should sit down and talk"), I'd like to hear.

And to people who claimed that they had debates with Chinese who could not explain the sovereignty of the islands, were the debated carried out in English or Chinese? Because people who even have a solid knowledge of history and politics can be at great disadvantage when using a second language. Try think how much you can express yourself on this topic in Chinese, and then try to imagine that you are given very little time to think under the pressure from a native speaker holding opposite opinions, and you may be able to understand.

But it is very calming to know that we have so many politically aware members here to be our 诸葛亮. I'd like to remind everyone to focus more on the violence in protests. We do think we really need any help on figuring out the ownership of the islands.

[Outofin]

realmayo said "Best thing is for the Japanese government to now lease them all to the US! " and another person posted earlier that he cared so much that he went into a debate with a Chinese friend. Not something I would do. For example, there are disputes between Japan and South Korea and Russia as well, and I have no opinion at all.

The U.S. government certainly takes side and that's why there's never real trust between China and U.S.

People're cautious on China's rise, which is understandable. I, too, am cautious on any disproportional rise of any power. But I don't know how much the caution would convert to hostility and how the hostility is perceived by Chinese people. That's the real question.

[WestTexas]

why so many foreigners seem to sincerely take Japan's side?

I'm just opposed to nationalism more than anything. The Japanese are nationalistic too, but they aren't going around expressing it by vandalizing things. I find it annoying and, honestly, kind of pathetic, that many Chinese think it's absurd and unimaginable for Japan to even think they have any claim to the islands. Let's look at a very abstracted version of the arguments presented by both sides:

China: The islands are ours. Your claims are ridiculous. Here are our reasons.

Japan: The islands are ours. Your claims are ridiculous. Here are our reasons.

So both sides are essentially saying the same things. Despite this, many Chinese see the actions of the Japanese as morally outrageous. For me, that many Chinese fail to see the relativity of the situation and instead inject dogmatic jingoism is rather hubristic and thus offensive.

In essence, the reason many foreigners take the side of the Japanese is that, if two kids are arguing about a toy, neither one of them is really 'right'. Both kids have reasons why the toy is theirs, but none of the reasons are altogether convincing to a third party. Most people will take the side, or want to take the side, of the kid who is being less bratty. China is being rather bratty at the moment, playing the victim card and throwing hissy fits about what is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor issue.

It is easy to point fingers. But if anyone does have any better ways of solving the dispute that will make all parties happy (and may actually work out, not something like "we should sit down and talk"), I'd like to hear.

US government organizes a false flag attack in which 'Islamic terrorist groups' detonate warheads on all the islands, removing them from the planet. Dispute over. Toy is taken away from children by adult.

(I'm not serious about this, but only because the tsunamis caused by the warheads would cause too much damage)

[imron]

But the national government instead of a local government taking action to change the legal status is arguably worse from the Chinese perspective.

I'm not so sure. The local government is run by a right-wing Japanese nationalist, the same guy who denies the Nanjing massacre took place, and who seems to take pride in inflammatory comments and sticking it to the Chinese. It would be a whole lot worse from a Chinese perspective if the local government took charge. As an aside, now that the islands are nationalised, it also allows the possibility for the government to use them in negotiations with China in a way that would have been more difficult if they were still under private ownership.

But on the real issue of the island's ownership, why so many foreigners seem to sincerely take Japan's side?

Liuzhou is correct in saying that many foreigners being disgusted by the protests doesn't mean they are taking Japan's side. In fact most foreigners couldn't give a rat's arse about some random islands in the middle of nowhere.

For the record, the way I see it after looking in to the situation is this. For better or worse, the islands have been out of Chinese control since the late 1800's and were currently under Japanese control - part private, part goverment. The governor of Tokyo, an ultra right-wing nationalist, and Nanjing massacre denialist, decides to buy the islands from the private individuals so that he can develop a port on them to establish Japan's ownership and control of the islands and stick it to China. The Japanese central government steps in and denies him that opportunity by buying them first, at the same time stating that they do not intend to develop the islands and want to maintain the existing status quo.

What gets me, is in all the reporting I've seen so far in the Chinese press (and I'm happy to be shown links showing otherwise), it mentions the part about the right-wing local government wanting to buy and develop them, and then says the central government joined in on the deal, implying that they are adding national support to the local government, when in fact the opposite is true and they are denying the local government the opportunity to do that.

Perhaps there was another way to solve the problem, but remember Japan isn't a one party state. It's not like party figures at the top can say don't do this, and local governments will jump in to line.

Anyway, I don't care who owns the islands, but smashing up and destroying property of innocent individuals over some perceived outrage certainly makes me wonder WTF.

realmayo said "Best thing is for the Japanese government to now lease them all to the US! "

That was almost certainly a joke.

[Outofin]

Fair enough. Just to make it clear that you're against the rioters rather than the general position China has on the islands ownership. I all agree. I probably shouldn't have taken realmayo's joke too seriously.

[xiaoxiaocao]

Anybody in Shanghai let us know how this goes down. Nice disclaimer at the bottom of the poster.

http://shanghaiist.c...ese_protest.php

[rob07]

It is worth remembering that China does not have a monopoly on badly behaved protestors. I found the London riots last year more disturbing than anything I have heard out of China so far (maybe partly because that was more in the news here). The Vancouver riots last year were even stupider. Not on the same scale, but in Sydney just last weekend there were some ugly scenes with people arrested over protesting that stupid anti-Muslim video which as far as I know has no connection with Australia.

[Scandinavian]

In many ways the other riots are stupider than the China ones. In the other countries the rioters do have the option of government change if they do not think their politicians are doing their jobs well enough (how odd the 3 mentioned are all commonwealth countries )