Ernest Schaal wrote:
> in article 1gvdhqv.19bm2fg18l7hmoN%dame_zumari@yahoo.com, Louise
Bremner at
> dame_zumari@yahoo.com wrote on 4/21/05 2:35 PM:
>
> > Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> >
> >> in article 42670B8A.4000905@yahoo.comm, John W. at
worthj1970@yahoo.comm
> >> wrote on 4/21/05 11:10 AM:
> >>
> >>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >>>> In fj.life.in-japan Prophet of the Way <afu@wta.att.ne.jp>
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I found this site by a group of historians that call themselves
'liberal'
> >>>>> (jiyuu
> >>>>> shugi shikan):
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Iris Chang's Errors in 'The Rape of Nanking
> >>>>> looking for truths in the sea of war-time propaganda
> >>>>> http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/nanjing/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem I have with books like Chang's is that it gives ammo
to
> >>>> those who would refute the whole idea of a massacre. Ie, if a
sufficient
> >>>> number of errors in a particular work can be found, then the
whole
> >>>> focus of the book will be called into question.
> >>>>
> >>> Yep. By focusing on the particulars people get away from the fact
that
> >>> regardless of how many people were killed it's still an atrocity.
> >>>
> >>> John W.
> >>
> >> I saw one news story saying that the atrocities ONLY numbered a
150,000
> >> people, which meant it wasn't important.
> >
> > Haven't the publishers of the Guiness Book of Records stated that
they
> > have no intention of having a World's Greatest Massacre category?
> >
> > So there's no need to get caught up in the numbers involved--just
in the
> > event itself.
>
> I think the reasoning is that if they could show that the Chinese
> over-estimated the extent of the atrocities then they could pretend
that no
> atrocities took place. Personally, I find that reasoning flawed.

I've always thought it was more of a we-want-to-argue mentality. But
unfortunately it seems to be very one sided.

I kinda wish China would follow Korea's example.

John W.