Ernest Schaal wrote:

> in article 41720AE3.2AC7E8B2@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
> etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 10/17/04 3:02 PM:
>
> > Ernest Schaal wrote:
> >
> >>> Then why do we not use these same titles for the actions other forces during
> >>> their recent military campaigns or wars, for example, to describe what has
> >>> happened in parts of Africa, or in the Balkans? Why do we not say the
> >>> "Darfur
> >>> Massacre" or the "Rape of Bosnia"?
> >>
> >> In both cases a stronger term has been used: genocide.
> >
> > So why are they not widely known as "The Genocide of Darfur" or "The Bosnian
> > Genocide", the way we use the terms "Nanking Massacre" or "Rape of Nanking"?
>
> They have been linked to genocide. The fact that there is a historical use
> of "Nanking Massacre" and "Rape of Nanking" has more to do with the fact
> that sufficient time has past to have such identifications, and because the
> actions in Darfur and Bosnia really didn't impact the US emotionally as the
> occurrences in China.

I'm glad that you, like Kevin can recognize this. Now why is this dependent on what
the US thinks? If the US is free to judge what it considers a Rape or Massacre,
particularly when they commit it themselves, then so are the Japanese.

> Darfur and Bosnia were minor military actions on our
> part, compared to four years (or more) of our military involvement in the
> defense of China against Japanese aggression.

Europe and Africa have other English speakers who can dub those periods of history
"Rape" or "Massacre", or "Genocide of" but those are rarely the terms that are
used.

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can
shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"