"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message 
news:BD96FC19.2955D%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> in article 2tbirjF1tlj10U1@uni-berlin.de, m.yoshida at masa@yahoo.co.jp
> wrote on 10/16/04 12:28 PM:
>
>>
>>> Unfortunately, the denial of the Rape of Nanking and the denial of the war
>>> crimes committed by leaders of the Imperial Army appears to be increasing,
>>> as revisionist textbooks are now being approved by local schools and
>>> right-wing politicians are becoming more powerful and more vocal.
>>
>> Mr. Schaal
>>
>> As an interesting perspective, see this:
>> http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html
>>
>> Masayuki
>
> Mr. Masayuki,

One wouldn't normally mistake the first name of Japanese
for the family name if one regularly contributes to fjlj. I may 
have to think about your credibility of discussing Japanese 
things.

> I checked out the article, which discusses the history of research in the
> Rape of Nanking. While obviously written to discount the Chinese version of
> the Rape of Nanking, it does not do a convincing job of supporting the
> Japanese Right Wing version either. It discusses the Chinese politics that
> taints the Chinese version, but is almost silent on the corresponding
> Japanese politics that taints the Japanese version. It clearly does not
> support the position of Kaz et al. that "the Japanese were gentle in China."

From a political view you are trying to read between the 
relevant nations' positions, but what I definitely say is that 
you cannot read and analyse original texts written in Japanese. 
So your view is apt to be to great extent based upon your 
own biases for the Japanese (and Chinese).

> At the end of the article, he made four conclusions. The first is that the
> topic is a controversial one. The second is that too many Japanese
> researchers are too ignorant of the facts. The third is that historians have
> an obligation to examine the calmly. The fourth is that a dialogue between
> historians working on the "Nanjing Incident" needs to be promoted. It
> clearly does not support the position of Kaz et al. that "the Japanese were
> gentle in China."

The reason why he uses the term "Nanjing Incident" is, I 
suppose, that he recognise his perspective is close to Professor 
Hata's one.  Actually Prof. Hata published a book titled "Nanking 
Jiken" (Nanjing Incident) about two decades years ago.

> I must admit to reservations about the author (a gaijin scholar working in a
> Japanese university) since he parrots the language of Japanese "scholars,"
> who call it an "incident" instead of a "rape". I also have reservations
> about the focus on how the Chinese are emotional about the topic while
> conveniently ignoring Japanese emotional blinders in place.

What is the matter with his work place? Chinese are more 
emotional and political that Japanese.  In addition don't you 
know how Chinese people prefer exaggerations?

> Frankly, I don't see the situation getting any better.

I know, I know.

Masayuki (is my first name).