PDA

View Full Version : Should Japan abandon the "16-rays rising sun flag" ?



Maciamo
Apr 29, 2005, 12:42
The rising sun flag (below) is not the same as the sun disc flag (hinomaru) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinomaru). It was used by the Japanese Navy and Army during Japan's invasion and occupation of Asia between 1895 and 1945, and is still used as the official naval flag of Japan (including the SDF). It is one of the most powerful symbol of the 20-30 million deaths that Japan caused around Asia during this period. In other words it is the equivalent of the Nazi swasitka flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Nazi_Germany). However, it would be unthinkable for Germany to use the Nazi flag nowadays, even as a naval ensign.

http://www.wa-pedia.com/images/content/rising_sun_flag.gif

Here is an explanation from Wikipedia's article on Japanese nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nationalism) :

Kyokujitsu-ki(the sun-with rays-flag) or "Japanese war banner". It was the ensign of the Imperial Japanese Navy; and also, one of best-known Japanese nationalist symbols from the First Chinese-Japanese War (1894-95) to the Pacific War (1941-45). This flag was sometimes also used by the Imperial Japanese Army on land, and is now employed by Japanese right-nationalist groups as well as the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces.


Should Japan continue to use the Rising Sun flag without fearing to cause anger in other Asian countries ? Would a modern, civilised and humanitarian country use a flag that reminds of its own atrocities during WWII ?

Mike Cash
Apr 29, 2005, 13:51
How about "No, because I'm tired of PC Thought Police BS"

Index
Apr 29, 2005, 15:22
Good question really. Though the swastika flag was Germany's national flag for a time, it was initially a nazi party flag and so is identified more with Nazi era Germany rather than Germany per se, at least in my mind. Does kyokujitsu have the same connotation or link with a particular movement in Japan's history? If so, I could see why it might be considered inappropriate. Otherwise leave it be, especially if it has been around for a long time and was initially a Navy flag.

Maciamo
Apr 29, 2005, 17:43
Though the swastika flag was Germany's national flag for a time, it was initially a nazi party flag and so is identified more with Nazi era Germany rather than Germany per se, at least in my mind. Does kyokujitsu have the same connotation or link with a particular movement in Japan's history? If so, I could see why it might be considered inappropriate.

The rising sun flag was first adopted by the Imperial Navy (then Army) under Meiji, at the time of the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). It was used during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), the occupation of Korea (from 1905), of Manchuria (from 1931), the invasion and occupation of China (1937-45) and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific War against the Allies. So we could say that the falg was used as a symbol of Japan's military in the only period of its history (50 years) when it waged war, invaded and occupied other countries. The Japanese at home didn't have much to do with these wars or this flag. So, yes, like the Nazi flag, it has a strong negative association : war, massacres and destruction. That is why I don't understand why it has been kept so far, and has even become a naval flag for civilian ships in addition to the Navy after 1945 (so it's like when the Nazi flag changed status from the party flag to the second national flag in 1933).

Eisuke
Apr 29, 2005, 19:47
Should Japan abandon the "16-rays rising sun flag" ?

No.


Here is information about the naval flag:

The naval flag was introduced in 1889 and that has 16 rays extending from the Sun "Mon" to the edge of the flag. The flag was "banned" by the Treaty of San Francisco which prevent Japan from having her own armed forces, but in 1952 she started to build up "self-defence" forces. The naval forces readopted the naval ensign in 1954.

I believe, but may be mistaken, that the naval flag was also the war flag in the Second World War, in which case it would have been used by Japanese soldiers and bases. This may be why you think they removed the rays from the flag, but in fact both flags existed at the same time. The modern land "self-defence" force uses a flag with 8 rays with a gold edge (made of two shallow triangles on each edge).
Graham Bartram, 9 November 1998

http://www.flag.de/FOTW/flags/jp^.html


This is just the flag of the Japanese Navy. It has been the flag of the Japanese navy since 1889. That is a couple of years before the first Sino-Japanese war (1894-95).

Hiroshi66
Apr 29, 2005, 23:24
Good point, Eisuke.

Maciamo, do you believe that both flags should be banned, including the Hinomaru? Because Japan is entitled to its own national flag as a nation. The Hinomaru is this.

As for this flag, it is not a national flag, but the naval ensign. Most countries have two flags - one is the national flag and the other is either the naval ensign or the land ensign.. naval ensigns are usually based on the national flags but done differently.

I think Japan is entitled to this right as a civilized nation, just like China, Malaysia, America, and Britain, etc. Some countries which have waged agressive wars continue to retain their flags too. I won't discuss the People's Republic of China in this thread so I don't get attacked again, but Indonesia (for instance) had waged agressive and illegal war against East Timor and none of their ensigns were changed.

I also think it is associated with Japanese modernity. Japanese military power. This is before that power was abused in World War II, but back in the 1880s. It is a cultural symbol. I voted for that option. It is a cultural symbol of the Japanese military.

Apr 30, 2005, 00:13
Those who feel that Japan should abandon kyokujitsuki had better demand the corporate flag of a certain pro-communist newspaper (http://www.asahi.com/english/) publisher to be abandoned first.
They are the only Japanese media praising Cultural Revolution, and kept the Beijing office open during 1960-70s.

btw did IJN ever have a battle against any fleet of an Asian country during WWII.

Maciamo
Apr 30, 2005, 00:41
Maciamo, do you believe that both flags should be banned, including the Hinomaru? Because Japan is entitled to its own national flag as a nation. The Hinomaru is this.

No, I don't think the hinomaru should be banned. You will notice though that Germany changed flag after WWI, in 1935 the again in 1945 (and slightly in 1990 for the reunification) to show the rupture with the previous government. Russia changed flag at the Red Revolution of 1917, then again when it lost its communist empire in 1991. Again that shows the rupture with the previous regime. Recently, Iraq and Afghanistan changed their flags after the US invasion to show the clear change of regime too.

Japan was allowed to keep the hinomaru along with the emperor because the US wanted to stress the continuity with the established regime. But the hinomaru did not become officially the national flag until 1999 ! (before it was used, but unofficially). I am not sure why Japan was allowed to make the hinomaru official, and at the same time rehabilitated Kimigayo as national anthem with complaint from the US, but I think it also coincide with the US's new strategy to push Japan to change its constitution, get an army, join the UN Security Council, teach patriotism at school (including singing Kimigayo), etc.


As for this flag, it is not a national flag, but the naval ensign. Most countries have two flags - one is the national flag and the other is either the naval ensign or the land ensign..

Yes, and both are offically recognised, both at a national and international level.


naval ensigns are usually based on the national flags but done differently.

Yes, most countries have s different naval flag. The Uk had dozens of naval flags actually. Other countries keep their national flag for the navy (e.g. the USA, France, Germany...). Some flag are only slightly different (Australia and NZ inverted the blue and white), but some have a completely different flag (e.g. Netherlands, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Korea...). You can check all of them on this great website (http://www.flags.net/).



I think Japan is entitled to this right as a civilized nation, just like China, Malaysia, America, and Britain, etc. Some countries which have waged agressive wars continue to retain their flags too. I won't discuss the People's Republic of China in this thread so I don't get attacked again, but Indonesia (for instance) had waged agressive and illegal war against East Timor and none of their ensigns were changed.

It is not only about waging war, but changing the government and the image of the country. The question is, does Japan want to be seen as the exact same country as during WWII, or a new, democratised and more peaceful country. It's a bit late to think about that as it's already 60 years the war is over. But Japan (or the US) have opted for the continuity, and with regard to the recent rise in anti-Japanese sentiment in East Asia, I was wondering if it was not better to finally break up clearly with the past and look toward the future. It is easy to create a new flag and a new image for the country.

Eisuke
Apr 30, 2005, 01:36
With all due respect Maciamo but if you think negative about alot of Japanese things and want to change it to your own liking then you should go to a other country.

Hiroshi66
Apr 30, 2005, 02:29
Maciamo, in regards to Germany, that is very true. Except, after WWI, the monarchy was abolished. A completely new government was ushered in. Same with the Nazis in 1935 and with the Second West German Republic after WWII. During Reunification, Germany was reproclaimed.

Nonetheless, a break with the past government does not mean a new flag has to be used. For example: Turkey. Turkey changed its government in 1923 and retained the old Ottoman flag.

bossel
Apr 30, 2005, 08:08
Voted "Don't give a damn...".
I really don't care about national symbols in general, but if the Japanese government wants to show that it broke with the warmongering past, they probably should consider changing the flag. Would give them some credibility among the countries they invaded before.



Second West German Republic after WWII.
What was the 1st West German Republic?


Germany was reproclaimed.
Reproclaimed?


Turkey changed its government in 1923 and retained the old Ottoman flag.
Well, perhaps we should ask the Armenians how they feel about this.

Maciamo
Apr 30, 2005, 10:24
With all due respect Maciamo but if you think negative about alot of Japanese things and want to change it to your own liking then you should go to a other country.

You still don't understand, do you ? It seems so difficult for the Japanese (on this forum) to compehend how my mind works. Maybe it is because you (and others who react like you) don't know the concept of universal humanitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarianism) (maybe it's normal as Japan is so self-centered, and so much "us vs them"). In addition, I can argue about anything that is not logical, "fair in all logic" (eg. why did Germany have to do things that Japan didn't).

In this very case (Japanese flag) I have no personal feelings guiding my reflexions. The rising flag doesn't bother at all as an individual. I wouldn't mind having one at home (just to show you that I really don't dislike it).

But MY personal feelings (or yours for that matter) have no place in a rational discussion about the political significance of this flag, the consequence it has on the image of Japan (especially among its neighbours).

Do you understand the importance of "symbolism" in politics ? This is what this is all about. Not just the flag and the emperor, but the visits to Yasukuni-jinja or the war apologies. Everybody knows that apologies or a change of flag will not change the past or repair anything. But it has a symbolic value showing a country's will to cut clear with its past, rather than endorse it. If you can't understand that, then you shouldn't discuss politics, history or international issues.

A last word, I wouldn't waste my time discussing about Japan's flag if I didn't have a deep interest in Japan (maybe another thing difficult to understand for the average Japanese, as they usually wouldn't be more interested in a foreign country as in their own, and usually already lack this kind of deep interest in their own country).

Osaka_night_cherry
Apr 30, 2005, 14:01
the flag should be officially banned in public places too, as was the Nazi flag in Germany

Iron Chef
Apr 30, 2005, 15:16
Reading through this thread reminded me of the old confederate flag controversy down south. This is still a hotly-debtated issue with a lot of people. I'm not sure what the answer is really.

Maciamo
Apr 30, 2005, 15:23
Reading through this thread reminded me of the old confederate flag controversy down south. This is still a hotly-debtated issue with a lot of people. I'm not sure what the answer is really.

Well, if the Japanese flag is officially recognised and allowed in public, I don't see why there should be any problem with the Confederate flag. At best it represent the slavery of the Southern US at the time. But it's hardly a comparison with the massacres, rapes, looting, cultural destruction, human experiments, etc. associated with the Rising Sun flag and the Imperial Army/Navy. We are not on the same wave length here.

Eisuke
Apr 30, 2005, 16:53
But MY personal feelings (or yours for that matter) have no place in a rational discussion about the political significance of this flag, the consequence it has on the image of Japan (especially among its neighbours).

Do you understand the importance of "symbolism" in politics ? This is what this is all about. Not just the flag and the emperor, but the visits to Yasukuni-jinja or the war apologies. Everybody knows that apologies or a change of flag will not change the past or repair anything. But it has a symbolic value showing a country's will to cut clear with its past, rather than endorse it. If you can't understand that, then you shouldn't discuss politics, history or international issues.

A last word, I wouldn't waste my time discussing about Japan's flag if I didn't have a deep interest in Japan (maybe another thing difficult to understand for the average Japanese, as they usually wouldn't be more interested in a foreign country as in their own, and usually already lack this kind of deep interest in their own country).

First of all I'm way above average Japanese. :-) Yes I understand symbolic value of things. Some people think this is the "ww2 flag" that it was made for that bad period in history, but it existed a couple of years before that happened. I really don't think it is the equivalent of the nazi flag. It is just the naval ensign of Japan.
People know Japan in recent times is not the same as back in the ww2 period. The USA even changed the official name of Japan from "The Grand Imperial Nation of Japan" ("Dai Nippon Teikoku Kenpou") to "Country of Japan" ("Nihonkoku").
Yes I think the war criminals should be taken out of yasukuni, but at the moment I can't do alot more then just see if it will happen .

Well there are alot of places where people who complain alot get told "if you don't like it here, you can go back to where you came from." I think people should respect how things are in other countries.

Maciamo
Apr 30, 2005, 18:39
Some people think this is the "ww2 flag" that it was made for that bad period in history, but it existed a couple of years before that happened.

The Nazi flag existed since 1923, become the 2nd official national flag in 1933 and the only one in 1935. WWII only started in 1939 in Europe, so the flag had existed for 16 years before the hostilities began. In comparison, te Rising Sun flag had existed for 6 years before the Sino-Japanese war and also 16 years before the occupation of Korea.


I really don't think it is the equivalent of the nazi flag. It is just the naval ensign of Japan.

Now it is, but until 1945 it was used by the Army as a symbol of Japanese imperialism. Nowadays, it is still sometimes used by the SDF Airforce, not jut the navy.


http://www.wa-pedia.com/images/content/SDF-kyokujitsu.jpg

It is also strongly associated with kamikaze at the end of WWII.


http://www.wa-pedia.com/images/content/kamikaze.gif

Was the flag even used by civilian ships from 1889 to 1945 ?
Anyhow, Germany also lost its WWI and WWII naval ensigns. (these ones (http://tmg110.tripod.com/3reich1.htm))



Well there are alot of places where people who complain alot get told "if you don't like it here, you can go back to where you came from." I think people should respect how things are in other countries.

I couldn't disagree more about this way of thinking, It is usually Americans who said such things (not all of course, but in much higher proportion than in other countries). That is partly why I created the thread Do you accept easily criticism about your country's system or government ? (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14986), which basically confirms this (just check who voted for what, and click on their name to see where they are from). I also explained here (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15958) why I feel that I can criticise the country/system where I have chosen residence. I don't think I have less respect for Japanese people than for people of my home country. They are fun people, annoying people, intelligent people and stupid in every country, every city and almost every group of people, however small. It's all relative. That's why I tend to concentrate on government issues rather than the people themselves (which I only use as a reference to have an idea of the "public opinion").

Mike Cash
Apr 30, 2005, 18:48
Well, if the Japanese flag is officially recognised and allowed in public, I don't see why there should be any problem with the Confederate flag. At best it represent the slavery of the Southern US at the time. But it's hardly a comparison with the massacres, rapes, looting, cultural destruction, human experiments, etc. associated with the Rising Sun flag and the Imperial Army/Navy. We are not on the same wave length here.

The only state which had NOT had slavery at some point up until the War of Northern Aggression was Vermont. At the time of the war, there were four slave states which were not part of the Confederacy (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware).

Eisuke
Apr 30, 2005, 20:44
Now it is, but until 1945 it was used by the Army as a symbol of Japanese imperialism. Nowadays, it is still sometimes used by the SDF Airforce, not jut the navy.

Personally I regard that flag as the Japanese Naval Ensign and also as Japan's historical and correct military flag. I don't see it as a symbol of Japanese imperialism.

People in general who are not originally from a country they reside in are free to complain about things of that country. However if the complaining is too much then they can be seen as against that country.
I think complaining is okay but not if someone complains about alot of things of a other country. If people don't like alot of issues of a country then I really suggest he/she moves back to their home country or a other country that they prefer more.

Tim33
Apr 30, 2005, 22:32
there is no reason what so ever to change the flag. The Nazi swaztica(spelling???) flag was a symbol of Nazi germany and brought in for that reason therefore of course it should be banned. The Japanese flag was not like that however and therefore i really dont see why they should get rid of it.

I think whats more important is instead the opposite and trying to stop focusing on the war for every issue in life. Chinese girl gets raped(lets talk about war), Japanese have a flag(let talk about war), A can of coke costs 69p in londis(lets talk about war).
I think people really need to move on and think about what really matters. Millions die daily of disease/hunger/poverty. why not spend our time worrying about the state of the world today and what we can do about that.

If people spent half the time trying to improve there lives now rather then complain about things that really are not important on the whole the world would be alot better off. If people just shut up complaining for a minuite and decided to work together we would be so much better off.

Sorry for going off topic but i need to get that off my chest....... Again

Maciamo
Apr 30, 2005, 22:47
The Japanese flag was not like that however and therefore i really dont see why they should get rid of it.

In what sense is it different ? It was brought in by people like Yamagata Aritomo (http://www.wa-pedia.com/glossary/yamagata_aritomo.shtml) and his cronies who created Japan's modern Army and Navy, and set Japan on its way to the nationalistic military dictarure it was from the 1930's to 1945. It is extremely similar to the rise of Nazi Germany if you ask me as a history buff.


Chinese girl gets raped(lets talk about war), Japanese have a flag(let talk about war), A can of coke costs 69p in londis(lets talk about war).

I have nothing to do and did not participate in the thread about the raped Chinese girl. I suppose that you know the flag we are discussing is not Japan's national flag.


I think people really need to move on and think about what really matters. Millions die daily of disease/hunger/poverty. why not spend our time worrying about the state of the world today and what we can do about that.

Feel free to post about that in the (non-Japan-related) "Serious Discussions" section. However this forum is about Japan. I have posted about other issues on other forums before. Don't ever assume that I have not had this kind of critical discussions about other countries in the world (just have a look at our "American issues" sub-section).


If people spent half the time trying to improve there lives now rather then complain about things that really are not important on the whole the world would be alot better off.

Well, personally I don't really have to. I would be bored and depressed without a place to discuss about Japan and other topics like here.


If people just shut up complaining for a minuite and decided to work together we would be so much better off.

How can you decide to work together while shutting up if people don't understand each others ? There need to be a place where people can learn more about each other's culture, history, way of thinking or whatever. People come to Japan Reference to understand better Japan (or for Japanese to understand how other people see them and how they could improve). I hope I can do the same for other countries later.

Index
May 1, 2005, 00:02
I think whats more important is instead the opposite and trying to stop focusing on the war for every issue in life.
I think people really need to move on and think about what really matters. Millions die daily of disease/hunger/poverty.


As far as problems are concerned, I'd say war is one of the biggest ones around. Among other things it does create hunger, poverty, and disease. It also tears families and people apart, as well as having major environmental side effects that can continue for generations. It is a problem that is capable of destroying humanity, therefore I think it IS a problem that really matters (to use your words).


why not spend our time worrying about the state of the world today and what we can do about that.

There are countless wars going on around the world right now, possibly more conflict than ever before prior to the twentieth century. Contrary to popular belief, the world has not recently become a more peaceful place, nor will it in the near future. It is therefore a very relevent topic.


If people spent half the time trying to improve there lives now rather then complain about things that really are not important on the whole the world would be alot better off. If people just shut up complaining for a minuite and decided to work together we would be so much better off.

What do you think is the point of most of the threads Maciamo puts up about Japan? It is to improve understanding and communication, to talk about issues and find out people's opinions about them. This is how problems get solved; I've never heard of any problem being solved by 'just shutting up'. Do you propose we should work together using sign language? What a preposterous suggestion. If you don't think this particular issue has any significance then perhaps you had better take another look at what kind of issues are making WORLD headlines right now. The antagonism between China and Japan is only one of the biggest international political disputes that has occurred recently, and it is primarily about WAR and attitudes towards it. Get your head out of the sand and take a look around.

Pararousia
May 1, 2005, 04:31
Maybe it is because you (and others who react like you) don't know the concept of universal humanitarianism (maybe it's normal as Japan is so self-centered, and so much "us vs them").

Maybe you answered your own question, Mac. IF the Japanese truly are as self-centered and/or self-absorbed as you say, then they don't care what other countries/people think when those flags are flown. Until they do care or feel ashamed about them, then they will continue to be flown.


It is not only about waging war, but changing the government and the image of the country. The question is, does Japan want to be seen as the exact same country as during WWII, or a new, democratised and more peaceful country. It's a bit late to think about that as it's already 60 years the war is over.

Every country has to decide how it wants to appear before the world's eyes. Here in the U.S. many times we're "damned if we do, and damned if we don't" by the countries around us. I personally would not want to fly a flag if it were vastly offensive (going back to the Confederate flag and Nazi flag argument) but it sounds to me like Japan has decided that it doesn't care. But why doesn't she may be the better question to pose?

Eisuke
May 1, 2005, 05:59
Here is some more information which explains the differences between the Japanese flags.

Japanese Flags

Civil and State Flag and Ensign

Description:
A red disk on a white field. The disk is known as the Hinomaru, a mon representation of the sun. It can be used on land and sea by civilians and government (excluding military).

Adoption Date and related information:
Although the hinomaru has been a symbol and flag of Japan for centuries (and unofficially a national flag since 1868), it was not officially adopted as the flag of Japan until 1999. The flag dimensions were set at 2:3.

Naval Ensign (War Ensign)

Description:
A hinomaru set towards the hoist, with 16 red rays.

Adoption Date and related information:
Following World War II, the War Ensign, which had been in use by the Japanese Navy since 7 October 1889 the flag use was discontinued as part of the treaty of San Francisco until 30 June 1954 when readopted for use by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. Proportions are 2:3.

Ground Self Defense Forces (War Flag)

Description:
A hinomaru with 8 red rays extending outward. A gold border lies partially around the edge.

Adoption Date and related information:
The War Flag was adopted 30 June 1954 as the flag of the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force. It's proportions are approximately 8:9.

http://www.flag.de/FOTW/flags/jp_fact.html

Maciamo
May 1, 2005, 09:46
Ground Self Defense Forces (War Flag)

Description:
A hinomaru with 8 red rays extending outward. A gold border lies partially around the edge.

Interesting link, I didn't know about that 8-ray flag. This was apprently a post-war creation influenced by the San Francisco Treaty. The funny thing is that the 16-ray flag was banned only for two years, from the enforcement of the treaty in 1952 until 1954. Another strange thing is that now the SDF and Navy use slightly different flags, but they don't mention the Air Force. From the picture I posted above, they also use the 16-ray version (and so did some kamikaze).

Eisuke
May 1, 2005, 10:37
Another strange thing is that now the SDF and Navy use slightly different flags, but they don't mention the Air Force. From the picture I posted above, they also use the 16-ray version (and so did some kamikaze).

The Japanese Navy has the same flag as the one first used by them on 7 October 1889.
Yes the Japanese airforce and army also use the 16 ray Japanese flag sometime because it is also regarded as the flag of Japan "at war". Here is a picture of the Japanese army tank with the flag:

Hiroshi66
May 2, 2005, 00:33
Bossel ~ you reply just to disect every word of my post, don't you? Fun to be you...

The first German Republic was the government that existed roughly between 1918 through 1933 when the Nazi Party seized power.

What do the Armenians feel about that? Here's some news - I am Armenian. And I don't really care. Because Turkey is entitled to its own flag. Its symbolism. But this conversation is not about the Armenian Genocide.

alexriversan
May 2, 2005, 01:02
i dunno why the labels for this *old cheese* are ever and more ever overduplicated. especially stirring in other countries "coffins in the cellar".

if i would be a japanese emperor, why not to make up a new flag symbolizing mt. fuji? to give japan modern thrive.

Hiroshi66
May 2, 2005, 01:07
The thing is that the Japanese flag is historical.. its not something created for the sake of World War II. True, the Hinomaru and the naval ensign were created by rescript in 1889, but the Hinomaru especially have older origins. Many trading ships which sailed to Siam and Luzon used this. For example, I know the current Korean flag (with the white background) has been in use since around 1897, but the design has ancient origins. If we're deciding that countries should have theirflags changed because of past atrocities is correct, than all countries need to change their flags.

bossel
May 2, 2005, 01:43
Bossel ~ you reply just to disect every word of my post, don't you? Fun to be you...
Well, if you would take greater care in writing your posts, it wouldn't be so easy to dissect them.


The first German Republic was the government that existed roughly between 1918 through 1933 when the Nazi Party seized power.
Well, you said "Second West German Republic after WWII", so I would like to know the "[First] West German Republic after WWII." Weimar was not West German, anyway, but included all (what was left) of Germany.


What do the Armenians feel about that? Here's some news - I am Armenian. And I don't really care. Because Turkey is entitled to its own flag. Its symbolism.
You don't care, interesting. & you are representative of Armenians? "L'état, c'est moi!"
Anyway, if Armenia & Armenians don't have a problem with the Turkish flag, it's not a problem for Turkey. But, if Koreans & Chinese have a problem with the Japanese war flag, then Japan has a problem to think about.


But this conversation is not about the Armenian Genocide.
But it is about the Turkish flag?

Hiroshi66
May 2, 2005, 04:55
You've gotten me really ticked off lately. And you're an Advisor? At the message board I moderate, I'd expect to get banned for talking like this to a member. And if I was an admin I would ban a moderator for talking like this.

The Second Republic was in West Germany, unless you would call the regime in East Germany a republic.

Armenians don't care about the Turkish flag. We care about how Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide and how most of Eastern Turkey is part of Western Armenia. Yes, it is about the Turkish flag. That is because we are discussing the flag of Japan and how some think it should be changed because it is associated with war and atrocities.

bossel
May 2, 2005, 07:58
You've gotten me really ticked off lately. And you're an Advisor? At the message board I moderate, I'd expect to get banned for talking like this to a member. And if I was an admin I would ban a moderator for talking like this.
I suppose, your message board is rather restrictive.


The Second Republic was in West Germany,
Ah, now that sounds a bit different than "Second West German Republic after WWII", doesn't it?


unless you would call the regime in East Germany a republic.
Of course it was a republic.


Armenians don't care about the Turkish flag.
Good on you, although it seems that at least some Armenians have an issue there. Look at the attached pic of a T-shirt sold by Armenians in Pasadena.


We care about how Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide and how most of Eastern Turkey is part of Western Armenia. Yes, it is about the Turkish flag. That is because we are discussing the flag of Japan and how some think it should be changed because it is associated with war and atrocities.
Logic? Discussing the Japanese war flag (we are not discussing the national flag, if you didn't notice), because it is related to atrocities.
Yes, it is about the Turkish flag, but not because it is connected to the Armenian genocide? Why then?
Perhaps the oppressive regime in occupied Europe, or the treatment of Kurds? Or because you just felt like mentioning it?

Again, since you obviously didn't notice, it is about the victims (the countries/peoples invaded & occupied)! If the people in countries that suffered Turkish atrocities don't have a problem with the flag, the Turks are lucky. But since there are obviously a lot of people who have an issue with the Japanese war flag, Japan needs to weigh the pros & cons of retaining a symbol of aggression.

Hiroshi66
May 2, 2005, 09:37
I suppose, your message board is rather restrictive.

At least its better than having people like you as mods though.



Ah, now that sounds a bit different than "Second West German Republic after WWII", doesn't it?

Not really. Second West German republic and Second republic in West Germany...



Of course it was a republic.

Why?



Good on you, although it seems that at least some Armenians have an issue there. Look at the attached pic of a T-shirt sold by Armenians in Pasadena.

Funny! We see a lot of those t-shirts. If you read the captions, you would see that it is desginated against Turkey. The Turkish flag represents the Turkish nation. We wouldn't care if the Turks keep their flag - we want representation. If you'd like - I will ask my hardcore nationalist friends their opinion tommorow and we'll see if your "opinion" is correct.



Logic? Discussing the Japanese war flag (we are not discussing the national flag, if you didn't notice), because it is related to atrocities.
Yes, it is about the Turkish flag, but not because it is connected to the Armenian genocide? Why then?
Perhaps the oppressive regime in occupied Europe, or the treatment of Kurds? Or because you just felt like mentioning it?

Oppressive regime in occupied Europe?


Again, since you obviously didn't notice, it is about the victims (the countries/peoples invaded & occupied)! If the people in countries that suffered Turkish atrocities don't have a problem with the flag, the Turks are lucky. But since there are obviously a lot of people who have an issue with the Japanese war flag, Japan needs to weigh the pros & cons of retaining a symbol of aggression.

Wow bossel, you get nastier and nastier everyday...

Maciamo
May 2, 2005, 10:25
The thing is that the Japanese flag is historical.. its not something created for the sake of World War II.

That is where you are mistaken. The flag was only created in 1889. WWII refers mainly to the European conflict from 1939 to 1945 and the Pacific War between the US and Japan. However, from an Asian point of view, the war with Japan started with the first Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95, then the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), immediately follwed by the occupation of Korea (1905-1945), then of Manchuria (1931-1945), the second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), then only the invasion of S-E Asia and the war with the US from 1942 to 1945. It was all part of the Meiji militarists's project of Great Japanese Empire ({鍑). It is those people zho created the Rising Sun Flag in 1889 - it just didn't exist before (or do you have evidence that could prove me wrong).


True, the Hinomaru and the naval ensign were created by rescript in 1889, but the Hinomaru especially have older origins.

So what ? That is exactly why I did not talk about abandonning the Hinomaru, but only the militarist Rising Sun flag of the "Great Japanese Empire".

Maciamo
May 2, 2005, 10:34
You've gotten me really ticked off lately. And you're an Advisor? At the message board I moderate, I'd expect to get banned for talking like this to a member. And if I was an admin I would ban a moderator for talking like this.

I really don't see what Bossel said wrong. You are the one to provoke him.



The Second Republic was in West Germany, unless you would call the regime in East Germany a republic.

No ! Between 1918 and 1933 there was only the Weimar Republic comprising the whole of Germany. The division between East and West only happened in 1945, then the Cold War started.


Wow bossel, you get nastier and nastier everyday

Hiroshi, there was no problem with Bossel's reply, but you will get banned if you don't behave and keep insulting moderators.

Hiroshi66
May 2, 2005, 10:38
Maciamo - its mostly in History and Traditions. You can go read my "Imperial Princes" topic there for more information. Very hositle and downright rude attitude. I am the one to provoke him? I doubt it - I posted a simple topic there and two members (one of which is bossel) practically attacked me there.

Did I say that? The Weimar Republic did comprise all of Germany - and the Nazi state comprised that and most of Europe from 1933 to 1945. The Second Republic(s) lasted from 45 to 90. Reinstated Germany is the newly reunified country.

Maciamo
May 2, 2005, 10:47
Did I say that? The Weimar Republic did comprise all of Germany - and the Nazi state comprised that and most of Europe from 1933 to 1945.

I can see your bad faith here. I doubt that yo knew that the Weimar Republic (which name you didn't use) comprise the whole of Germany if you say think that the Nazi state comprised most of Europe from 1933. The Nazi only invaded Poland in 1939 and other countries from 1940, not 1933.


Maciamo - its mostly in History and Traditions. You can go read my "Imperial Princes" topic there for more information.

I suppose that you are frerring to this thread (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16420). However I couldn't find any mention of "flag" (I did search the whole thread with Ctrl+F). This only add to my impression of you as a person of bad faith. If you want to argue that the Rising Sun flag has a historical significance because it was used long before Meiji, then give me some hard facts. I searched the Web before (mind you I am not going to post such a thread without a bit of research) and couldn't find anything.


Very hositle and downright rude attitude. I am the one to provoke him? I doubt it - I posted a simple topic there and two members (one of which is bossel) practically attacked me there.


Bossel was not hostile at all. That's in your imagination. He pinpointed your mistakes, and answered logically and without being rude. As he said before, you should be more careful about your wording of sentences. Everry word count. If you make a mistake or use a unsuitable word, you should only expect to be criticised.

Hiroshi66
May 2, 2005, 13:13
Maciamo -

When you can't find anything wrong with my post, you probably have to conviently use my wording to say something is wrong because you never can really agree with me. The Nazi state which existed from 1933 to 1945 at its largest extent comprised the territory from France to deep inside Soviet Russia - from the tip of Norway until Greece. From 1933 to 1939, the country was comprised of Germany, the Rhineland (annexed in '35 from France), Austria (annexed in '38), and the Sudetenland (annexed in '38 from Czechoslovakia which was itself annexed in '38-39'). After that the Polish invasion - then Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, etc.

The Imperial Princes topic was an example of bossel's hostility, not the flag topic. No, its not in my imagination.

Martialartsnovice
May 2, 2005, 14:24
Okay can I jump in real quick,

Okay Bossel: I agree with your posts Weimar being a republic of what was left of Germany and all. But on that same token I see the points of Hiroshi66. May I make a sugestion, to everyone Imnot trying to be rude, or anger anyone. K. But anyway I think as for the Japanese Flag in question. As others have said the Flag was drawn into being before the WW2. K. But as for abolishing it, I say NO because if Japan abolishes its Naval Ensignia, then I say the resto of the world should have to abolish their Military Ensignia.

Maciamo: Can I make a statement on this post:

That is where you are mistaken. The flag was only created in 1889. WWII refers mainly to the European conflict from 1939 to 1945 and the Pacific War between the US and Japan. However, from an Asian point of view, the war with Japan started with the first Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95, then the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), immediately follwed by the occupation of Korea (1905-1945), then of Manchuria (1931-1945), the second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), then only the invasion of S-E Asia and the war with the US from 1942 to 1945. It was all part of the Meiji militarists's project of Great Japanese Empire ({鍑). It is those people zho created the Rising Sun Flag in 1889 - it just didn't exist before (or do you have evidence that could prove me wrong).

The war with Japan started before the instances you quoted in the post I have referenced above. The conflicts started with Japan and China when Kabula Khan of the Gengis Khan family line, sent Two Naval/Calvary Invasions to the Japanese Islands. Though both invasions were unsuccesful due to a storm at Sea. Anyway after these attempted conquests, is when Japan began its self-imposed isolation. This to me seems the most logical explaination of the conflicts and as to the origins of the Naval Ensignia.

As I said earlier in this posts, I dont mean to offend anyone. So take this in measure.

Maciamo
May 3, 2005, 00:57
The war with Japan started before the instances you quoted in the post I have referenced above. The conflicts started with Japan and China when Kabula Khan of the Gengis Khan family line, sent Two Naval/Calvary Invasions to the Japanese Islands. Though both invasions were unsuccesful due to a storm at Sea. Anyway after these attempted conquests, is when Japan began its self-imposed isolation. This to me seems the most logical explaination of the conflicts and as to the origins of the Naval Ensignia.

Let's take this with measure then. :p

First of all, there is no connection between China in 1895 and the Mongol invasion of 1274 and 1281. It's just too distant in time and type of society, and then Kubilai Khan was a Mongol that first invaded China, not a Chinese.

Secondly, Japan only started its self-imposed isolation from the Edo period (http://www.wa-pedia.com/culture/edo_period_era.shtml) (seclusion from 1639 to 1854), not after the 13th century failed Mongol invasion. One of the reason Japan closed itself to the West (except the Netherlands), was that the Portuguese had tried to introduce Christianity and other dangerous ideas. Contrarily to popular beliefs, Japan was not closed to the whole world, and continued trading with China and Korea during that period. More information on this subject here (http://www.baobab.or.jp/~stranger/mypage/seclusion.htm).

bossel
May 3, 2005, 08:48
Not really. Second West German republic and Second republic in West Germany...
You really can't see the difference? :okashii:
Anyway, 2nd republic is not quite true. There were a number of smaller (soviet) republics in Germany after WWI. BTW, GDR & FRG were created in 1949, not 1945.


Why?
From M-W (is it really asked too much that you inform yourself at least a little bit?):
republic
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government [...]


Oppressive regime in occupied Europe?
If you didn't notice: the Ottoman empire occupied pretty much the whole Balkans for centuries.




The Nazi state which existed from 1933 to 1945 at its largest extent comprised the territory from France to deep inside Soviet Russia - from the tip of Norway until Greece.
Wrong. The Nazi state does not equal all the occupied territories. The Reich comprised only the territory of pre-WWI Germany plus incorporated Western Czechoslovakia, parts of Ukraine (namely Galicia) & Poland & some smaller chunks of other countries. Look at the attached pic!

Even if you'd count all occupied territories, that wouldn't make up "most of Europe," though.


the Rhineland (annexed in '35 from France)
Er..., what? :shock: Who told you this crap? The Rhineland was part of Germany, according to the Locarno treaty it was demilitarised. The only thing the Nazis did, was to remilitarise it against the treaty (edit: & that was in 36).


No, its not in my imagination.
Well..., it is. For the rest of what you said I refer to Maciamo's posts.

Hiroshi66
May 3, 2005, 11:39
Why would it not make up most of Europe? The only independent states were Britain, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Portugal, and the Soviet Union (which was already mostly occupied).

Faustianideals
May 3, 2005, 13:42
Let's keep it unbanned, so that the pop culture won't adopt it as something cool.

Ikyoto
May 3, 2005, 14:11
It's really up to the Japanese as to what is banned and what isn't in their own culture. By the same token, why not ask why the Chinese don't remove pictures of Mao becasue of all the people his orders sent to their deaths? Why not demand that the US ban the confederate flag?

It's no more important than people make it. A symbol is a symbol. Better to change the hearts of those who still refuse to address the past and those who will not let a generation that is dying go to their graves with the horrible acts they commited.

I do not say forget the past, but clinging to it only drags the hate into another generation.

bossel
May 3, 2005, 15:32
Why would it not make up most of Europe? The only independent states were Britain, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Portugal, and the Soviet Union
Wrong. There were several other independent countries (eg. you forgot all the allies of Germany). If I find the time, I'll scan a map tonight & post it.

BTW, you have to differentiate between the Reich, occupied territories & independent states. Actually, it's even more complicated than that, but that should serve as basic outline.

Martialartsnovice
May 3, 2005, 16:52
Yeah Hiroshi, The Reich at its highest point of expansion covered France, Belgium, German Holdings in Africa and Asia, Poland, and Part of the western Soviet lands. But as for the banning for pop culture issue, I believe this is an overstatement.

Maciamo: I disagree with your post in answer to mine. Ive checked into the subject and yes I agree that the culture was different, but the flag was drafted by the Shogun as a Military symbol to rally his troops for battle. The 16 rays are said to represent the 16 generations from his time to the beginning with Amameratsu and the descent that she was supposed to have placed into authority. As Japan's first emperor. If I errored with the spelling of the Nihongo words in this post, bear with me, Im training to understand Nihongo, and post in the Nihongo forum. But as for now, I will post these in english.

Martialartsnovice
May 3, 2005, 16:56
Okay I agree with the idea of the Netherlands and its attempts with forced christinaty with Japan. But I also have been told, and I have read in different sources, that with the Isolation period, that if foreigners washed up on the shore, they couldnt return to their homelands, and if Japanese citizens washed onto foreigner shores, that they were forbidden to return upon the pain of death.

Maciamo
May 3, 2005, 19:03
Maciamo: I disagree with your post in answer to mine. Ive checked into the subject and yes I agree that the culture was different, but the flag was drafted by the Shogun as a Military symbol to rally his troops for battle. The 16 rays are said to represent the 16 generations from his time to the beginning with Amameratsu and the descent that she was supposed to have placed into authority. As Japan's first emperor.

Do you have any link to confirm this. I have never heard of the flag being drafted by the shogun. It also doesn't make sense to say that it "represents the 16 generations from his time to the beginning with Amameratsu", because 1) the shogun was not the emperor and was not say to descend from Amaterasu, 2) there were officially 107 emperors before the Edo period (or 121 before Meiji) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Emperors_of_Japan), so much more than 16 generations.


Okay I agree with the idea of the Netherlands and its attempts with forced christinaty with Japan.

You are mixing everything up again. It was not the Netherlands who attempted to bring Christianity to Japan, but Portugal and Spain. The Dutch were allowed to stay justly because they didn't try to convert anybody.


But I also have been told, and I have read in different sources, that with the Isolation period, that if foreigners washed up on the shore, they couldnt return to their homelands, and if Japanese citizens washed onto foreigner shores, that they were forbidden to return upon the pain of death.

I will attribute you numerous misunderstandings of "what you read" to your young age. Unallowed foreigners coming to Japan were not forced to stay in Japan. They just couldn't come or were thrown out of the country or killed. It is only true that the Japanese could not return back to Japan if they left the country or were also killed (but there might have been exemptions for trading with Korea and China ?).

Maciamo
May 3, 2005, 19:20
It's really up to the Japanese as to what is banned and what isn't in their own culture.

I diagree. If it had been up to the Germans to decide, they may not have banned Nazi symbols. They were forced to by the victors. If it's up to Japan, like the content of history textbooks and the official visits of politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine, they will not change anything, because it cannot be offensive for them (but it is for the countries that experienced Japanese occupation).


By the same token, why not ask why the Chinese don't remove pictures of Mao becasue of all the people his orders sent to their deaths? Why not demand that the US ban the confederate flag?

These issues are completely different because they are domestic problems. If some Chinese decide that Mao was bad enough for his picture to be banned, that is their decision as they were the victims. Other countries don't care as Mao did not kill their citizens (as long as Tibet is part of China). Same for teh Confederate flag. That was an internal problem, and can only be solved internally. But let us not forget that Japan invaded ALL East Asia, as far as India, and also waged war against the US, UK, France, Netherlands, Australia, etc. The Rising Sun flag represents Japanese Imperialism, their conquest of East Asia and associated atrocities. Most Japanese were not the victims but the perpetrators of this. So it is ludicrous to say it is up to them to decide, as they will of course not find it necessary. It would only be seen as a sign that Japan finally realises that its Rising Sun flag is wrong, 60 years after the end of the war. How could they do this by themselves without foreign pressure ?

But again, as I said I don't care. I even entertained the thought of using this flag as a logo for JREF (but Thomas and I decided it might look too nationalist). I am only playing the devil's advocate (one of my favourite hobbies).

If you are curious to know what my Rising Sun flag JREF logo looked like, here it is.


http://www.wa-pedia.com/images/h/jref-asahi.gif

Ikyoto
May 3, 2005, 20:18
But Tibet was forcebly taken over by China. Doesn't that fall into the same criteria as areas of China that were invaded by Japan? The peope killed in Tibet by Chinese troops were not Chinese citizens.

The confederate flag is an internal US issue and does face self censorship.

But my point is essentially that reguardless of where the pressure comes from nothing will change untill the hearts and minds of people change. Right now I have seen no evidence that the Japanese are wiling to address the issue at all, other than as a responce to external presure - It's a bandaide effect and they are not seeing it as something within their culture they even need to face.

Maciamo
May 3, 2005, 21:14
But Tibet was forcebly taken over by China. Doesn't that fall into the same criteria as areas of China that were invaded by Japan? The peope killed in Tibet by Chinese troops were not Chinese citizens.

Technically they were Chinese after the annexation of Tibet. Not ethnically Han, but there are many more ethnic minorities in China than the Tibetans. In fact there are 8 ethnic minorities with more people than the 5 million Tibetans (see demographics of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mainland_China)). But there are already people fighting for the rights of the Tibetans, sponsored by celebrities like Richard Geere. In fact, in Western countries we always hear about China and Tibet, but rarely about Japan and East Asia (at least that's my impression).


But my point is essentially that reguardless of where the pressure comes from nothing will change untill the hearts and minds of people change. Right now I have seen no evidence that the Japanese are wiling to address the issue at all, other than as a responce to external presure - It's a bandaide effect and they are not seeing it as something within their culture they even need to face.

I agree. That's why I am trying to sensivitise them to the issues at stake. But I think it's a lost cause in the current circumstances.

Ikyoto
May 4, 2005, 00:48
Not lost, just something that will take a LONG time. You are trying to change a mindset that has developed over thousands of generations. I have learned that other cultures do not understand how the US people can be so diverse - it's because we're the newest kids on the block!

Patience. It's something we all want and want right now! :-)

bossel
May 4, 2005, 07:29
Yeah Hiroshi, The Reich at its highest point of expansion covered France, Belgium, German Holdings in Africa and Asia, Poland, and Part of the western Soviet lands.
You too?
I understand that you & Hiroshi are still in your teens. Where did you get this "info" from? From some popular (but rather un-scientific) website or magazine? Or from your history textbooks at school? If it's the latter, perhaps you should talk to your teachers about purchasing more accurate textbooks.

The 3rd Reich never encompassed France or Belgium, even less parts of Africa. & may I ask, where this idea of holdings in Asia comes from? (I can't remember any Nazi occupation in Asia)
Northern France (& the Atlantic coast areas) was occupied, but not incorporated, except for Alsace-Lorraine.
Belgium was also occupied, but only the areas around Eupen & Malmedy were integrated into the Reich.

For the rest look at the attached pic & its legend (sorry, no time to combine it into one pic). It's a bit more complicated than I explained, but I suppose, you'll get the gist.

Ikyoto
May 4, 2005, 09:32
I see the problem. They equate occupation with being integrated.

bossel
May 5, 2005, 09:51
I see the problem. They equate occupation with being integrated.
Yep, & not only occupation. Some obviously even count allied nations as integral part of the Reich.

I can only guess that it might be related to those maps which simply show one big red (or whatever colour) zone in Europe & mark it with a swastika. I've seen similar maps in German history textbooks, but at least the texts & teachers explain it in much greater detail.

Martialartsnovice
May 10, 2005, 03:30
I see a flaw in your thinking though, Bossel. Im half German, and Ive studyed WW2, I have Great uncles and a great grandfather who fought at Battle of the Bulge, in France, Czechoslavakia, Holland, Germany, and across Western Europe. In America the AP/Honors Histry classes teach us that the Allies of the Reich, were in politics considered by the Alies as PART of THE Reich, I aso have had a German Teacher tell me that the Reich used its Allies as platforms to launch attacks and counter measures, so I dont quite understand were your logic is coming from, but I d know this, that the Reich controlled most of Europe during the WW2.

bossel
May 10, 2005, 07:36
In America the AP/Honors Histry classes teach us that the Allies of the Reich, were in politics considered by the Alies as PART of THE Reich, I aso have had a German Teacher tell me that the Reich used its Allies as platforms to launch attacks and counter measures, so I dont quite understand were your logic is coming from, but I d know this, that the Reich controlled most of Europe during the WW2.
"considered by the Alies as PART of THE Reich"
To consider sth. as such does not mean that it actually was part of the Reich.
The situation as I explained above applies. It was even more complicated than what I said, because there was a variety of territories where German laws & regulations applied to differing degrees. In independent nations, as most of the German allies were (most of the time), no German laws applied.

Whether the Reich controlled most of Europe once in a while is a different question. I doubt, that even this rather loose definition would hold true (for simply geographic reasons, Europe reaches up to the Ural).

Anyway, the Greater German Reich never encompassed most of Europe, regardless of what the Western Allies considered.

Regarding "the Reich used its Allies as platforms to launch attacks" I would like you to ask yourself how your logic applies. Since the US used eg. Saudi Arabia as a platform to attack Iraq, does that mean that SA is part of the USA (well, the letters are :p )?

Martialartsnovice
May 10, 2005, 08:19
Well, Maybe you or some of the others who share your views, should contact the US Textbook publishers and tell them to stop printing this misinformation, that is taught to American students. I say this not to offend but to help stop the flow of misinformation, cant the german govt intercede and get the publishers to correct their errors.

bossel
May 10, 2005, 08:33
Well, Maybe you or some of the others who share your views, should contact the US Textbook publishers and tell them to stop printing this misinformation, that is taught to American students. I say this not to offend but to help stop the flow of misinformation, cant the german govt intercede and get the publishers to correct their errors.
I suppose, since you're in the US & actually have access to the books (& teachers involved in spreading the stuff) it would be much easier for you to do so.

Martialartsnovice
May 10, 2005, 08:35
Im only a student in a crowd of thousands around the country so I wont be given much thought

Martialartsnovice
May 10, 2005, 08:37
I suppose that my logic in the statement in Post #56, was a little shaky in sens eof allies and platforms.

Martialartsnovice
May 11, 2005, 03:32
I have one theory that I have heard, htat the 16 rays of the flag are representing the 16 major provinces or clan territories. To everyone this is a theory, not a statement, so I posted it here to ask this question, how many Major Clans were their in Japan, at the adoption of the flag.

cyber ape
May 11, 2005, 23:53
Just no.

Seriously, I was truly offended when I learned Georgia's flag used to have the Confederate flag, a flag symbolizing slavery of African-Americans, as well as rebellion.

Japanese might isn't even close to what it used to be, and, furthermore, that just paints a poor picture of Japan's jingoism.

Of course, if they lost the flag, Shorty's would need a new Skateboard (http://store1.yimg.com/I/tgmskateboard_1838_1566370)

Tim33
May 12, 2005, 00:22
The national flag of Japan, known as the Hinomaru (͊ or ̊ۂ̊ "sun disc") in Japanese, is a base white flag with a large red disc (representing the sun) in the centre. A legend says that its origins lie in the days of Mongol invasions of Japan in the 13th century, when the Buddhist priest Nichiren was supposed to have offered the sun disc flag to the Emperor of Japan, who was considered a descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu. In fact the sun disc symbol is known to have been displayed on folding fans carried in the 12th century by samurai involved in the feud between the Taira and Minamoto clans. It was widely used on military banners in the Sengoku ("Warring States") period of the 15th and 16th centuries. Subsequent Shogunates established it as the flag to be flown from Japanese ships.

By the time of the Meiji Restoration of 1868, it came to be regarded as the national flag. Though the sun disc design was officially adopted for use in naval flags in 1870, it was not formally adopted as the national flag until August 13, 1999 by a decree that also confirmed its exact dimensions. A well known variant is the sun disc with 16 red rays which was historically the flag for use in Japan's military until the end of World War II.

I cant for the life of me find out about the history of the 16 rays

Martialartsnovice
May 13, 2005, 02:58
Yeah, Ive looked around the internet and theres no mention of any reason for the flags design.

nurizeko
May 14, 2005, 23:24
the nazi flag is the symbol of facism

rising sun flags are national flags of japan, which though misguided in the side it chose on the war, nether the less, is still just a national flag.

so no, dont get rid of it.

Martialartsnovice
May 18, 2005, 11:23
Yeah, But History has recorded over and over what happens when crackpots are given power over the masses.

Bramicus
Jul 8, 2005, 07:07
The rising sun flag was first adopted by the Imperial Navy (then Army) under Meiji, at the time of the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-95).In that case no, it should not be banned. It wasn't adopted as a specific symbol of a fascist ideological movement as is the case with the Nazi flag, but as a national symbol only. (Not the national flag symbol, but a national flag symbol -- got to be really careful about terminology on this forum.)

As for how angry it makes other countries who remember the brutal occupation, etc., there's a lot more burning of the American flag these days than there has ever been of any Japanese flag, and a lot more anger around the world directed at America. So I guess by that standard United States would have to ban its flag as well.
http://ergo-sum.net/smileys/rolleyes.gif

Looks like the poll results so far (38 voters, not 32) are:

Keep the flag -- 55%
Ban the flag -- 34%
No opinion -- 11%

Bramicus
Jul 8, 2005, 07:25
In fact, in Western countries we always hear about China and Tibet, but rarely about Japan and East Asia (at least that's my impression).Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that China is still occupying Tibet today, while Japan hasn't occupied East Asia for the past 60 years -- or is there a Japanese occupation of East Asia going on that I don't know about?

http://ergo-sum.net/smileys/rolleyes.gif

Inuyasha-the-kid
Jul 8, 2005, 09:40
That was the main flag and it shouldn`t be banned

Gaijinian
Jul 8, 2005, 11:14
I voted probably, but have come to conclude that it should be banned because of it's direct association with WWII Japanese imperialism. I also think it would ease tension with it's neighbors.

Off topic:
It is not odd that was once , meaning Banzai could be '?' No wonder Japan sided with the Nazis...

EDIT: I just notices my avatar... :143:

Maybe I'm a bit of a hippocratic... :souka:

Changed it!

Martialartsnovice
Jul 17, 2005, 00:29
Hey everyone needs some comedy, though I think it should be left as it is. I read that it stems from an earlier era before the imperialism, and Meiji restoration.

Warlock
Jul 19, 2005, 23:46
we should abandon all flags and burn them and hold hands as we jump into the sea..

Martialartsnovice
Jul 20, 2005, 00:46
But if we did, what would we do if a ceremony needed a national flag, or at the UN, with all the flags they display.

Mycernius
Jul 20, 2005, 01:09
How about "No, because I'm tired of PC Thought Police BS"
I tend to agree here. As for the argument that it represents Japanese imperialism and should be banned then why not ban the French, British and Spanish flags. After all their imperialism was brutal in some countries.
The Nazi flag was a flag of a political party, not a national flag. It became a national flag when the Nazis took power. The 16 ray flag is an ensign in the same way that the Jack of any navy is a ensign. It doesn't mean anything political.

Warlock
Jul 20, 2005, 05:55
who said it was ceremonial...

Mycernius
Jul 24, 2005, 18:35
Just a note for anyone interseted in Japanese flags this is a good site
Flags of the World (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/jp.html)
Not only does it mention the 16 ray flag, but also shows historical flags and military flags.

zeroyon
Aug 2, 2005, 19:37
The problem here is not what the japanese people think the flag symbolizes, its what people of other countries (namley Korea/Corea and China) think what the flag symbolizes. Many people in nations that are anti-japanese are still flaming mad at the occupation of their countries during war, and some still think that the japanese are all evil people on the brink of attacking again should they possess the strike ability to do so. By having the flag still being used on naval warships that was also used in previous wars ephasizes this point to an extent. Some people who were traumatized by the war can still hold hate when they see the flag still sailing on japanese warships. By changing the flag to the current national flag, it would try to help some anti-japanese people realize that japan does not still hold the ambitions it once held.

In the end though, it is the japanese who have the final say in weither the flag should remain in use or not, and it is their choice how to handle it. Nothing should or will change that.

masayoshi
Aug 10, 2005, 02:40
I believe they should change their naval ensign because it reminds others too much of the treacherous wartime Japan. There's the image of the kamikaze, atrocities and cruelty associated with it and it's too fresh in the minds of those who suffered.

But whether to change or not is the choice of the Japanese. The flags associated with the other Axis countries are like taboo nowadays in those countries

Kinsao
Aug 10, 2005, 22:14
Disclaimer: I haven't read all pages in this thread! :p

At first I was thinking, maybe the flag shouldn't be used, to show some respect to the countries which it offends. I'm not saying it means there is something 'wrong' about the flag, as such... but I can see it offends some people, so maybe it's just nicer to say, let's not use it any more (although, since when do people care about being nice? :blush: - but you see what I'm saying?).

There is a lot of comparison with Nazi flag, where I was reading on here. I have heard recently, talk about the swastika as not a 'Nazi symbol' but it is originally a Hindu symbol (I think). And there was talk of 'reclaiming' the swastika as its original peaceful meaning/cultural significance. In fact, Hindu temples have swastika symbol above the door... and not to let Nazis claim it and make people think so many negative connotations about it, but to remember the actual origins and history of swastika.

So, I started to change my view, and think that maybe these kinds of symbols (i.e. relatively old origin but have been appropriated for bad stuff) should be reclaimed instead. Why should these 'movements' have the small victory of ruining these things? Maybe people can become to think more widely about such things as 16-ray flag and swastika.

I don't know the answer... but that is what I was thinking.... :clueless:

Keoland
Aug 10, 2005, 22:21
We have to see things from a Realpolitik perspective here: Japanese pacifism is beguinning to become a detriment, and not an asset, to the United States.

While in the 1940s and 50s to keep Japan a peaceful state could be desired by America, in the XXIth century the absence of a willingness by Japan to be more militarily active is becoming very problematic.

For example, the US needs troops to fight the War on Terror, especially in the Middle East. BUT North Korea also poses an *actual* threat in Asia. Not to mention that Taiwan could always use some extra support.

In that regard, it would be good if the US could have a strong ally in the region that could make a fast military intervention if the american military is otherwise engaged elsewhere.

Japan is perfect for that role. BUT its stance is very much limited by its constitution and pacifist tendencies.

It naturally follows that it is in the US best interests to rekindle enough self-pride in the Japanese so that they can take independent action in the region and indeed free up US troops. Also, that would mean that no american troops would have to die to actually protect Japans' interests against terrorists, should those threats be located outside of the Home Islands.

In addition, it would also mean that Japan could live up to its status as one of the worlds' major powers, and take active military action against terrorists and other threats, something that America is in dire need of.

As a result, there is about zero chance that Japan would have to change its naval insignia.

(this is also why Japan can have now officially the Kimigayo as its anthem, and why school teachers in Japan are now required to sing it in front of the hinomaru at school events. The USA and its closest allies *need* a more militarized and active Japan in the XXIst century, simple as that)

Xkavar
Aug 11, 2005, 08:48
The USA and its closest allies *need* a more militarized and active Japan in the XXIst century, simple as that


Forget the flag; can you pick up a rifle? ;)

Sukotto
Aug 21, 2005, 02:47
It seems like a symbol of war.
We should ban war.



--
"we draw lines and stand behind them,
that's why flags are such ugly things"
~pop song, north america, circa late 20th century

Dream Time
Sep 12, 2005, 15:51
i believe the flag should be officially banned in public places too.

the 16-ray flag is a symbol of Japanese imperialism.

Sukotto
Sep 13, 2005, 15:49
You've convinced me.
I do not believe the Japanse gov't should
be using it. Imperialism is always wrong and there
is no good imperialism.



Maybe we'll have to ban the US flag as well?

From the time before its birth, including in the US declaration of independence where
it refers to the first nations of Norht America as (and I quote): "merciless Indian Savages"
and used this as self-justification for continental imperialism, to the imperialism of
Teddy Roosevelt president/ Mark Twain anti-imperialist league era, to the messy oft
misunderstood post war era, the US has pretty much been an imperialist country
for its entire existance. Can't miss a chance to mention this always conveiniantly forgotten history. :embarasse

nurizeko
Sep 13, 2005, 17:01
By that logic japans new imperialism is through bussiness and commerce.

Well, at least thats what its trying, it was doing well one time.


The US flag stands just as much for imperialism and bad behaviour as japans ray sun flag, and yet for all that its still just a nationsl flag, old glory is still considored a symbol of right, and things a good nation should be, it pretty much holds together the desperate parts of america by itself.

If i remember correctly from earlier on in this thread, the ray sun flag was a naval flag?, anyway, the point is, its a flag for the navy, it doesnt actually stand for facism or nazi'ism or any given philosophy of hate, it stands for japan....and at one time japan was bad, and they were suitably punished for it (hello, nukes) but if we can demand japan gets rid of a national flag for what its ancestors did, then i could demand england gets rid of its flag for invading and pillaging scotland, indians could demand america burn old glory, infact very few countries could keep their flags.

You cant make a state of mind and hatred into an object and then demand its destruction, that doesnt get rid of it, unfortunatly we have free will, and bad people will always be bad.

I personally think the better way to oppose hatred is to deny it, its symbols, by taking them back, if the ray sun flag was banned, racist organizations would still carry it.

lexico
Sep 13, 2005, 17:01
Wise remarks, yes, so true, so conveniently forgotten it is ! Coming to think of it, N.Korea's been saying exactly that for the past 55 yrs, hahahaha.... :evil:
Please do not take offense, above posters. I do not mean to insult your posts, but just wanted to point out another conveniently forgotten fact of history. :embarasse

Dream Time
Sep 13, 2005, 17:13
the 16 sun ray flag is a naval flag, but the Japanese air force also used it, flags are not just flags, they are symbols, just like the national anthems.

Dream Time
Sep 13, 2005, 17:15
and at one time japan was bad, and they were suitably punished for it (hello, nukes)


Japan has been punished, but they show no signs of regrets, 60 years after the war they are still denying history and refusing to apologize.
if they want to tell the world that they have changed, they should ban the 16 sun ray flag.

Sukotto
Sep 14, 2005, 14:00
Well, I was thinking with the US - post war, a little more than
just commerce. Although the browbeating of weaker countries into
accepting IMF & World Bank conditions does go along these lines of
a form of imperialism.

More specifically I was thinking of so much harm the CIA has done
at the behest of US presidents. Just today I picked up "All The Shah's Men",
a book about the US overthrow of Mossadegh the democratically elected leader of Iran back in 1953. The author of this one also co-authored a book on the US coup of the democratically elected Arbenz in Guatemala in '54. Those are just two examples of out right imperialism by the US, post war.
There's a wealth of information out there on the dirty tricks the CIA pulled.



:wave:
But back to the flag issue....

If the Japanese gov't stopped using it officially, I do not believe
it should be banned out right for individual use. What if there
was a historic movie made and it was banned? Would one
have to get a license to use such a flag? What about an independent
film that really drills into Japan's history, say Nanking and some bureaucrat didn't happen to the topic? Maybe s/he might be a denier.

Should the Nazi Germany flag be banned?
I think someone posted that was a party flag first.
In Germany it is banned and no one can display it.

In the US how about the stars & bars of the confederate flag?
There is much controversy surrounding that too.
(It is actually the Confederacy's naval flag that is popular in parts)
It keeps coming up once in a while despite being as horrid
as the Nazi flag since the vice-president of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens had such crakka-jack stuff to say as below (from his wikipedia page):

---
He went on to assert that the US Constitution with its "assumption of the equality of races" was "fundamentally wrong". "Our new [Confederate] government is founded ... upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery\subordination to the superior race\is his natural and normal condition"
---

One guy online whom I debated insisted the Confederacy and the US civil war was strictly about ceceding. While I did recognize that there was more to this era that typically is taught in high school history books, I disagreed citing the above.

Given that that is what they claimed of the Confederacy at the time,
that is what the flag stood for that - the delusion of white supremacy.
The flag is bad blood among some who view it as a symbol of slavery and others who say it is a "symbol of their heritage".
**You mean your slavery heritage?**


IMO, that flag has been Cartoon-ized by the popular US television program
"The Dukes of Hazard", and has lost some of its bad connotation among some people. To them it may just be viewed as a symbol of rebellion.


While I don't believe this flag should be banned,
I do believe it and other Confederacy symbolism should be removed from certain southern states flags.


Does that add anything to the discussion or is it just me liking
the sound of my own fingers typing?

Sukotto
Sep 14, 2005, 14:16
nurizeko,

Speaking of flags, I see that you use the Scottish flag instead of the union jack
which, is either the flag for Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
(I just found out the difference last year.)

Forgive me, I don't mean to "press any buttons",
I'm just wondering if you hold more loyalty to Scotland
and if so why.
And also if there are people of Scotland,
England, or Wales who would want those areas to be independent.
What are the dynamics between the areas and GB or UK?
Maybe these are ridiculous questions?

(note: I know little to nothing about N Ireland despite it being
in the news often over the years. International news in
the US corporate media is aweful. Almost no background or history.
In depth reporting? Yah, right.)

nurizeko
Sep 18, 2005, 19:04
Originally Posted by nurizeko
and at one time japan was bad, and they were suitably punished for it (hello, nukes)



Japan has been punished, but they show no signs of regrets, 60 years after the war they are still denying history and refusing to apologize.
if they want to tell the world that they have changed, they should ban the 16 sun ray flag.

America has displaced and killed countless native americans, fought many foreign wars, not all conveniently justifiable as un-assailably good, more recent examples of america's less then stellar behaviour having been civilian casualties in its more recent modern war expiditions, i agree that not all japanese show regret, but setting aside the fact most japanese accept their country paid the price for its arrogance and now detach themselves from the issue and just get on with things, America doesnt make a habit of regretting and apologising in any meaningful way for the lives its military has destroyed, for the wrongs its caused....Waving old glory doesnt excuse american military from the bad things they sometimes do, even if they arent the norm.

If japan must constantly be expected to bedn over and take it and do what everyone tells them and abandon a symbol of their nation, then i put it to you america must forever more erase old glory from the world.


No?...why?....it doesnt matter, you could give me an endless essay of why america deserves to keep its flag and i would agree within the first few, the point is japan is entitled to its national symbols as much as america is to its flag, to its july the 4th, to its american pie and american dream and everything else that represents the nation and people of america.


As for Sukotto, far from pressing buttons you've presented me a very interesting question.

I guess in my hearts of hearts i considor myself scottish.
i love scotland, and its countryside, i love the culture and the fact the people seem robust and friendly, a "wild" country thats not always been considored the heart of civilization like rome or france, but nether the less has a strong cultural identity of its own and a peoples pride of their heritage.

You would have to be scottish really to understand it, or better yet, if you belong to a nation, ask yourself why you love your country and that should give you some idea of why i love mine.

Scotlands always had a strong national identity, we've been an independent nation, and it was only a few hundred years ago i think when a scottish king was given the english crown and the treaty of union between england and scotland that the united kingdom was formed.

Just the general things that you expect of all nations and peoples, we have our own histories and geography and ethnic make-up...granted were as white as any european, but for one example we wernt invaded by germanic tribes like england so, by cultural and linguistic reasons alone we can claim our own national identity.

Theres independence parties in all of britains nations that together create the united kingdom, except for england, i think, and at the momment they still quite a bit from acheiving independence for their respective countries but, scotland and wales have devolved government (as example scotland has its own seperate parliament).

Britain in general gets along quite well, we have our own seperate national identities but for the most part, we all still recognise shared geohraphy (the british isles) and some history (were all on the same island so, we;ve all interacted with each other), the same language, english (we have seperate national languages but they arnt widely spoken, and most folk speak english).

So saying that, i DO considor myself british, and i hold the union jack in high regard, alongside the saltire (scottish flag) but it depends really.

For foreigners and in general i will say im british but i still feel deepest down that if i had to choose between the UK and scotland, i would choose scotland.

I guess its like texans, they have a strong identity as texans, they considor themselves americans, but they still hold the texan identity.

At least thats how i see it, could be wrong.

lexico
Sep 18, 2005, 19:20
I feel the need to make a statement so that my post above be not misconstrued as making any kind of association with Sukotto and communism or any communist party that had ever been in existence either in or out of US territory ever. I feel the need as anti-communism, sad to say, is still used as a common means of depracating a political foe in the public's eye, (and possibly legally, also, for reasons of national defense). No one, either of the Democratic, Republican, or a non-affiliated political trend, should ever use my post to criticise Sukotto, for I shall sue whoever does so for infringement of my copyright, and give whatever assistence I can possibly give to Sukotto. I have made my warning.
From the time before its birth, including in the US declaration of independence where
it refers to the first nations of Norht America as (and I quote): "merciless Indian Savages"
and used this as self-justification for continental imperialism, to the imperialism of
Teddy Roosevelt president/ Mark Twain anti-imperialist league era, to the messy oft
misunderstood post war era, the US has pretty much been an imperialist country
for its entire existance. Can't miss a chance to mention this always conveiniantly forgotten history.
Wise remarks, yes, so true, so conveniently forgotten it is ! Coming to think of it, N.Korea's been saying exactly that for the past 55 yrs, hahahaha.... :evil:
Please do not take offense, above posters. I do not mean to insult your posts, but just wanted to point out another conveniently forgotten fact of history. :embarasseThe reasoning that two legal bodies each making a statement of equivalent content are connected in reality NEVER has general validity on logical or historical grounds. To claim so would be equivalent to saying that the winged Pterodactyl and the feathered birds are more closely related than the snake and the crocodile just because they share wings for aviation; or the fish and the whale are more closely related than humans and the whale just because they swim in the water.

Two totally different systems of thought can and will often produce the same observation on one single historical phenomenon if they are doing a scientific/objective and logical analysis on the sukject. One principle of scientific studies; regardless of means of analysis, the results should converge if the studies are done right. Agreement on fact is hardly enough evidence to claim that Sukotto is in any way connected to the communist party or communist ideas.

Some individuals and groups are just more objective than others with a vested interest, whether personal, political or ideological. Anyone who does not have the brains to see that, (s)he deserves to be condemned irrational, deluded, and unfit for political debate, not to mention a position of public service.

Sukotto
Sep 19, 2005, 23:36
I tried to click a smilie in here, one that looked kinda embarrassed,
but the new OS or browser we've temporarily got isn't taking it.

he he. I didn't expect that.

But, if history is any teacher, than perhaps the patriot act might
be used for what the US gov't did under a program the fbi called
"cointelpro'. They went after people just because they didn't like
their politics. And there have been peace activists put on no fly
lists for what turned out to be no rational reason.

Sensuikan San
Sep 20, 2005, 11:37
I believe they should change their naval ensign because it reminds others too much of the treacherous wartime Japan. There's the image of the kamikaze, atrocities and cruelty associated with it and it's too fresh in the minds of those who suffered.

But whether to change or not is the choice of the Japanese. The flags associated with the other Axis countries are like taboo nowadays in those countries

The last sentence is actually not quite true, inasmuch as the flag of Italy is unchanged except for the absence of the coat of arms of the House of Savoy ... due to the fact that Italy is now a republic, and no longer a monarchy. the absence of the coat of arms has absolutely nothing to do with a disassociation with Fascism - indeed, Italy never adopted a different flag during the Fascist period. As far as I'm aware the only things that changed were aircraft National markings (which displayed fasces quite prominently) .

With regard to the Japanese flag - I (guardedly...) feel that there is a distinction between it and the German Nazi Banner. The latter was undeniably associated with the Nazi partei - having been used at no time prior to the creation of that particular political group. It was contrived, created and displayed purely to emphasize "National Socialism" in Germany and later, the World at large.

In contrast - the Japanese "Rising Sun" ensign - although associated with WWII - was actually in use and a National Emblem long before the atrocities and events of the period under discussion.

Therefore - why should it be held in lesser regard than the Italian Tricolore ?

Perhaps it is just a poor old flag with a strong and proud history ... that just happened to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" ... ?

You certainly can't say that about the Nazi German flag ! ... and you probably can't say that about the "Stars and Bars" either ...!

(What bugs me is the fact that ... they're all very striking designs, aren't they !)

...Just a thought ....

W

Dream Time
Sep 21, 2005, 10:17
America has displaced and killed countless native americans, fought many foreign wars, not all conveniently justifiable as un-assailably good, more recent examples of america's less then stellar behaviour having been civilian casualties in its more recent modern war expiditions, i agree that not all japanese show regret, but setting aside the fact most japanese accept their country paid the price for its arrogance and now detach themselves from the issue and just get on with things, America doesnt make a habit of regretting and apologising in any meaningful way for the lives its military has destroyed, for the wrongs its caused....Waving old glory doesnt excuse american military from the bad things they sometimes do, even if they arent the norm.

If japan must constantly be expected to bedn over and take it and do what everyone tells them and abandon a symbol of their nation, then i put it to you america must forever more erase old glory from the world.


No?...why?....it doesnt matter, you could give me an endless essay of why america deserves to keep its flag and i would agree within the first few, the point is japan is entitled to its national symbols as much as america is to its flag, to its july the 4th, to its american pie and american dream and everything else that represents the nation and people of america.



um...i'm not an American, i'm a Chinese Canadian..so i don't really care if US changes its flag..however i would like to see China change its flag coz its a symbol of Communism and millions of Chinese people died under Mao's reign. as for Japan, i think they should ban the 16 sun ray flag to show the world that they are not the Imperial Japan that they once was.

Martialartsnovice
Dec 3, 2005, 02:17
however i would like to see China change its flag coz its a symbol of Communism and millions of Chinese people died under Mao's reign. as for Japan, i think they should ban the 16 sun ray flag to show the world that they are not the Imperial Japan that they once was.

I agree with you on this topic. I think it should also be changed, or China itself should show the world, that its no longer a communistic Nation. THe Japanese should retain their flag, as a symbol of national pride, as others have said already. The world, as a community needs to forgive Japan. Yes the people who ordered the actions taken in Manchuria, Korea, and other places have either gone to the grave, or have been punished.

The world, needs to accept the fact that Japan, is a changed nation. Its true, that Japan is ignoring its past actions, could it be that many are ashamed of their country's past. Its up to them, to choose which path they travel down.

Martialartsnovice
Dec 3, 2005, 02:31
By that logic japans new imperialism is through bussiness and commerce.

Well, at least thats what its trying, it was doing well one time.


The US flag stands just as much for imperialism and bad behaviour as japans ray sun flag, and yet for all that its still just a nationsl flag, old glory is still considored a symbol of right, and things a good nation should be, it pretty much holds together the desperate parts of america by itself.

If i remember correctly from earlier on in this thread, the ray sun flag was a naval flag?, anyway, the point is, its a flag for the navy, it doesnt actually stand for facism or nazi'ism or any given philosophy of hate, it stands for japan....and at one time japan was bad, and they were suitably punished for it (hello, nukes) but if we can demand japan gets rid of a national flag for what its ancestors did, then i could demand england gets rid of its flag for invading and pillaging scotland, indians could demand america burn old glory, infact very few countries could keep their flags.

You cant make a state of mind and hatred into an object and then demand its destruction, that doesnt get rid of it, unfortunatly we have free will, and bad people will always be bad.

I personally think the better way to oppose hatred is to deny it, its symbols, by taking them back, if the ray sun flag was banned, racist organizations would still carry it.

Hey Now,

In America, We have the stars and stripes to symbolize the 13 original colonies.

What happened to the Native Americans, is unreversable. Most was commited before all of us were born.

Im Scottish, and I have studied the History, of the war between King Edward, or Longshanks if you prefer, and the Scots. Its a record of many outright unforgivable acts. The English, had no reason to invade, and conquer Scottish lands. Many of the Scottish Lords, so out their own people for hereditary titles and lands in England.

Im also Irish, so that give me the right to burn Scotland and England to the ground, for the practice of shipping their debtors to Eire, and having them farm Irish lands. NO!


What people in the past did, the future cant be accountable for. The US did have a empire, So did Great Britan, France, Germany, and every nation at one time. But what is done is done, and theres no use crying over spilled milk, you just clean it up and move on, which is what most of the world needs to do about their hatred of the Japanese Naval Flag, or the US Flag, or German Nazi Flag.

On another note, the statement you posted in dealing with Hatred. I will say this, if a country were to ban it, it would slowly boil over in the shadows until its burst from its lair. Then its to late to contol or avert it.

celtician
Dec 5, 2005, 23:54
Well in a country 'like' Japan these people get offended when you say you don't like natto and they think you should go to another country.....mindless, particularly this Eisuke character.
The fact is the Japanese lack imagination so they have one of the most simplistic flags on earth and due to this lack of imagination they keep using this hinomaru to remind their neighbours and oh yeah those arseholes who ride around the centre of Tokyo shouting through loudhailers and hanging out the flag a disgrace!

Katrean Shard
Dec 7, 2005, 23:52
It is only the Maritime Self Defense Forces flag. I see no need they would have stop it flying. Each country has some several flags or ensigns for military divisions. These were possible all bad for happening or action in the past associated, because military is violence.


its a flag for the navy, it doesnt actually stand for facism or nazi'ism or any given philosophy of hate

I agree with that above.
And also I agree with...


You cant make a state of mind and hatred into an object and then demand its destruction, that doesnt get rid of it

Sadly it is true.

Elizabeth van Kampen
Dec 8, 2005, 00:34
Last year I read in several Japanese newspapers ( Japan Times, Japan Today and the Asahi Shimbun) that quite some Japanese teachers were worried about the return of the 8 rays flag and the anthem.

Well, I am afraid that Japan will do it again, because Germany learnt from their mistakes during WW II, but Japan didn't.

As Confusius said; Making mistakes is nothing, but not learning from your mistakes ... that is really making mistakes!

Kinsao
Dec 8, 2005, 17:40
Well, I am afraid that Japan will do it again, because Germany learnt from their mistakes during WW II, but Japan didn't.

Well, I am not sure... I don't think it's fair to say that Japan didn't learn from its mistakes. It didn't do perfect everything since, far from it, but which country does? I think Japan has learnt some lessons. I wonder sometimes how many lessons exactly has England learned... :okashii:

I really think that to give such significance to the flag only gives more power into the hands of people who want to misuse it. I am all for reclaiming. After all, swastika is Hindu symbol and you see it on the Hindu temples. I think it's better for people to remember the real meanings.

Sukotto
Dec 12, 2005, 04:29
After reading other people's arguments and thinking about it a little more,
I must say I really do not know what the right answer is to this.
Which might be why I never actually voted in the poll yet.

Maybe it is none of my business.
What do the people (but not necessarily the gov'ts, they usually tend to be
diplomatic and overly polite) of the countries Japan colonized or tried to colonize think about this? I would think their opinion matters more than someone who happened to be born in the country that seemed to deal out
winners 'justice' after the war.

Although I still have issue with the confederate flag as noted in an earlier post- not 'winner's justice' reasoning.

redroger
Dec 13, 2005, 12:15
I'm a new member, so please bear with me.

I've read through the postings on this subject and politics aside nowhere can I find why the 'rising sun' was adopted as a flag. Don't get me wrong - it's a very powerful symbol, arguably stronger than the red disk on white. But why that particular design? Does it go directly to something that was happening at the time in Japan? And is the sun really 'rising' ? It looks as though it's more like overhead.

No tricks here, I guarantee, just a simple search for enlightenment.

Any info gratefully received.

Katrean Shard
Dec 13, 2005, 17:11
It's really hard to find informations on this! :o
I read that the flag was officially adopted as Japan's national flag in 1870, and that the white field is symbolic of "honesty and purity". Also some details about the precise positioning of the red disk which is nearer the pole end of the flag. The characters for 'Nihon' or 'Nippon' can be translated as "origin of the sun" or "land of the rising sun", I guess it is called this because of location in the East, so, if you are in another part of Asia (for example) you look at the rising sun and it is rising from the direction of Japan. But I don't know whether this was the reason for the flag symbol or not. :clueless:

According to the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, "the first concrete evidence that testifies to use of a sun flag for Japan dates from 1184". The Encyclopaedia also associates it with the tradition that Japan was founded by the sun goddess Amaterasu. This seems a likely origin for the flag.

Hachiko
Dec 17, 2005, 15:04
Course not. You can make some kick-*** bikinis with that. :-)

Martialartsnovice
Dec 24, 2005, 06:49
Interesting, Seems there is some mystery behind the creation of Japan

If time can talk...
Jan 17, 2006, 23:54
Actually it matters little if Japan abandons the Rising Sun flag or not.It's different from German Nazi flag anyway.We shouldn't ask Japan to give up everything it used during wartime,right?It's up to itself to make a decision and has nothing to do with other countries.HOWEVER,if it's me to make that decision,I'll abandon using the flag.The political environment towards Japan isn't that bright already,don't give others another chance to criticize.

nurizeko
Jan 19, 2006, 18:04
If japan has to give up the ray sun flag, america has to give up its stars and stripes, britain the union jack, and every other country.

I think weve concluded that the 16 ray flag is a creation to symbolise and represent japan, not any unacceptable political ideals, so just as america has comnmited some regrettable things flying the old glory, japan has obviously commited dark things while their flag flew, but it doesnt make the flag evil, merely the governments who ran the show at the time.

If a US president commits crimes, you dont impeach the flag, you impeach the person or people responsible.

celtician
Jan 20, 2006, 22:37
What are the "Nips" proud of anyway? They've copied everything under the sun (sic) so probably they borrowed that 16 sunray symbol from China.

If time can talk...
Jan 21, 2006, 13:39
What are the "Nips" proud of anyway? They've copied everything under the sun (sic) so probably they borrowed that 16 sunray symbol from China.
Funny comments anyway.

AllMakesCombined
Jan 25, 2006, 05:43
I probably have the same opinion on the rising sun flag as I do with the dixie/rebel flag. Despite it's history that it represents, I still think one should have the right to wave it. If it's earned a negative image through history then the one who displays it should expect and deal with the dirty looks they'll get.

The dixie/rebel flag is actually not a symbol of slavery, since that's not what the civil war was actually about, yet most flag-wavers are also wrong about it's symbolism. Many US southerners will argue that it's a part of American history and therefore should be proudly displayed. I, on the other hand see it as a rather anti-American symbol. The dixie flag represented the armies formed by the states wishing to defect from the industrialized union. The industrialization of the United States contributed greatly to it's success as a nation. Since the flag essentially represents "not wanting to be a part of the United States", it's very un-American to me. People that are aware of it's true meaning that proudly display it might be better off buying or discovering their own little island where the can live like the Amish in peace. Even so, as Americans, they have every right to wave a dixie flag, nazi flag, or even an Al Qaeda banner if they want. It's their right, as Americans, if they really feel like looking like a bunch of radical segregationalist idiots.

I haven't studied the rights endowed to the Japanese enough to know if they are granted similar freedoms. I'm going to guess and say it can't be that much different than the US. If Japan is to be considered as free of a country as the US (and there are many countries more 'free' than the US), then the rising sun flag shouldn't be banned at all. Regardless of how negative of a symbol many people might consider it, I believe the right to display it should be maintained.

Of course, I'm far from an expert on this manner and actually didn't realize there was a specific meaning behind the rising sun flag other than it being a WWII-era Japanese symbol until I read this thread.

Not that it would change my opinion any, but I'm curious as to how popluar of a notion that the flag is a negative symbol among Japanese citizens. Does anyone have any input on this?

Keep in mind, my opinion may just be a result of my very "American" way of thinking.

nurizeko
Jan 25, 2006, 21:14
The confederate flagh being "not american" is probably fine, many people who fly it actually probably do have the wish to be in the confederacy rather then the union.

I always did wonder if the states and confederation fought each other to a stalemate so that two nations occupied continental USA instead of the giant we have now.

AllMakesCombined
Jan 26, 2006, 02:26
I always did wonder if the states and confederation fought each other to a stalemate so that two nations occupied continental USA instead of the giant we have now.


My personal theory is that you'd have the slightly smaller C.S.A. (Confederate States of America), would be primarily farmland, crops, and oil, and the U.S.A (United States of America) producing technology, automobiles, banking, etc... Both countries would be mlitary allies and would trade freely. There are less civil rights in the CSA, as Bush is president there. The USA has some Libertarian or Democratic president. USA opposes Israeli support bias while the CSA favors it. Prohibition would have never happened in the north, and thus, hemp is legal, while the farmlands of the south aren't allowed to grow it. There is also a North American passport, and both countries use the same currency called the Americo or Amero. There is no slavery in either country, though the USA critisizes the CSA for not requiring citizenship or visas for hispanic immigrants to work on their farms for pennies a day. There are two Californias, each in a different country... United California and Confederate California. The capital of the CSA is either Atlanta, Georgia or Austin, Texas.

That's just using my imagination, though... I like to imagine alternate time lines :lol:

Duman
Apr 25, 2006, 06:58
Despite what historic (WW2) conotations it may have, the Kyokujitsu-ki doesn't really stand with the Swastika globally and many wouldn't associate it with right-wing-ness I wouldn't have thought.

I for one really like that flag for the Japanese military, I've got one actually (I collect flags)

irishlight42
Apr 25, 2006, 22:03
[QUOTE=]Those who feel that Japan should abandon kyokujitsuki had better demand the corporate flag of a certain pro-communist newspaper (http://www.asahi.com/english/) publisher to be abandoned first.
They are the only Japanese media praising Cultural Revolution, and kept the QUOTE]

They are also one of the few newspapers in Japan which acknowledges Japanese atrocities during the war (I've read Senso: The Japanese Remember the Pacific War). South Korea is a Democracy, Taiwan is becoming a Democracy (thanks to the Democratic Progressive Party there rising to opposition against the nationalist Kuomintang after all these years).

As we'd say in the U.S., they staff of the Asahi Shimbun are not commies.... they are pinkos! Naturally, you don't like what they have to say, because they're "anti-Japanese" by bringing out the stories of WWII and therefore not hardcore nationalists.

They do not support communist China, but they do care for the people of communist China because supporting human beings all around the world is only proper, as opposed to just caring about Japanese lives. People are all human beings, and thus the Asahi Shimbun supports the people of China, not the government

Thing about the Rising Sun flag, is that even though it is not just about WWII, firstly it has come to be a symbol of what happened during the war (why the Confederate flag, really just meant to be symbolic of the Confederate soldier originally became a symbol of evil; it was used at rallies by pro-segregationists during the "Civil Rights" era in the U.S.). Secondly, and perhaps moreover, even before WWII it was a symbol of Imperial Japan (which has some unpopularity with Korean going back prior to WWII). Japan is a democracy, and as a democracy should try not to embrace the old ways, however I still am not sure that the Rising Sun flag exactly embraces that.

I basically think that the flag is alright, UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS! It should not be used just to "show one's patriotism". As nothing but a Naval flag, I think it's just fine. Like the Confederate flag doesn't have to be an offensive symbol in the U.S. (we had a civil war BETWEEN our ancestors, and it's symbolic of heritage), but in the wrong place it can also become a symbol of evil (KKK, segregationists, etc.)

Anyways, so those are my thoughts. Be aware of what it is (not originally meant to be a symbol of evil), but also what it symbolizes to some people (under certain circumstances it can still become a bad symbol.)

Matthew Ota
Apr 28, 2006, 10:43
I do not think the Japanese Ensign should be banned. I think it is more beautiful than the hino-maru. I own one.

Matthew Ota

cursore
Apr 28, 2006, 22:45
If I can compare,
The Italian Flag had really little variation before during and after the fascist regimeand we too have commited crimes in our colonies.

Eventually after sending away the King we removed the coat of arms from the flag whereas the fascist banners were outlawed

caster51
Aug 11, 2006, 11:21
burakumin....
why were they discriminated??
Because it was from principle of pfilthy or dirty( q`j.
many of ppls do not want to see them.
many of ppl want to cover the stinky one......



however there is no fault in flag, too
I think those ppl might become discriminator easily ?

Goldiegirl
May 21, 2007, 13:32
The flag is cool. I don't think it should be abandoned. It looks exceptional when blowing in the wind. I don't mind that it was used by the navy. It's not necessary to change a flag because it was used in a war. I think most that are around right now have been involved in a war, conflict or dispute.

hanachan
May 27, 2007, 00:13
When the new Japanese Navy (Maritime Self-Defense Force) was reorganized in 1954, the Government once tried to renew its Naval flag. Because they worried about criticism from the people who don't like a former Naval flag.
An famous artist who was asked for designing brought a new flag to the Government and said, "It's the only one that I could think. If you don't like it, you should ask another person."
The new flag was the totally same as a former flag.:-)

Off topic:
By the way, this 16-rays rising sun flag (:kyokujituki) is a Navel ensign. Every country's Navy has its own. It is usually flown at the tail of a ship to show its nationality. The US Navy has an interesting one which is drawn "a rattlesnake" in the center of a flag. Have you seen it? If anyone knows what it means, tell me please. :note:

Goldiegirl
May 27, 2007, 00:31
It comes from and older flag that said "Don't Tread On Me". Basically don't attack the US this is our warning, just as a rattlesnake rattles it's tail to warn you not to step on it. Also it started when England had wanted to send convicts to the US when it was a colony and the US colonies suggested that they should send rattlesnakes to England. They were trying to make a point, don't send us criminals and we won't send you snakes!

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I know this is off topic...I just wanted to give hanachan a quick answer...

hanachan
May 27, 2007, 00:41
I just wanted to give hanachan a quick answer...

Thank you for replying to me so quickly! Doumo Arigatou!
It's an interesting story.
Every nation has a tradition. It should be respected, I think.
Thank you again, Goldiegirl!
:cool:

KirinMan
May 27, 2007, 07:33
Every nation has a tradition. It should be respected, I think.


However I feel it all depends on the tradition, that is if it should be respected or not.

SushiShin
May 29, 2007, 05:57
Banzai!! And i still think in it!! Banzai!! for the emperor and for japan a loud BANZAI!!

Just kidding i think i've seen too much Letters from Iwo Jima lately =S

Arabic Boy
Jun 11, 2007, 15:51
I don't think that japan needs to change their flag ...

terorrests all over the world are using our flag ( check under my name )

and we ain't changing no s*** :emblaugh:

akita
Mar 24, 2008, 21:29
There is no valid reason for such a thing. First of all is not their national flag. Secondly it was adopted long before the WWII. The Nazi Germany flag was not the normal Germany flag before the war. It is the navy symbol and it seams very normal to me that they respect it with no other connotation .

Should we ban the red color since it was on the communist flags? Should the countries in Europe that have on their flags a cross change them because of crusades?
As Arabic boy said should all Arabs countries start to change flags that some terrorists use them ?

dongdong
Mar 24, 2008, 23:12
I don't think that japan needs to change their flag ...
terorrests all over the world are using our flag ( check under my name )
and we ain't changing no s*** :emblaugh:

Terrorists and Japan has nothing todo with that.
You are comparing totally differnet things :emblaugh:

dongdong
Apr 1, 2008, 12:38
Some Japaneses claim that Japan has already apologized for the past war crime during WWII.
If they have apologized, then why would they agree on 16 rays rising sun flag since that flag symbolize imperialism of Japan during WWII era?

In this case, it is a double standard.

caster51
Apr 5, 2008, 16:53
If they have apologized, then why would they agree on 16 rays rising sun flag since that flag symbolize imperialism of Japan during WWII era?

Flag has a nothing to do with apology.

hotaruika
Jun 19, 2008, 20:47
I believe justice of The rising sun flag.
The rising sun flag correspond to Iron Cross(Eisernes Kreuz,German Cross of the armed forces).It is not Haken Kreuz(German Cross of Nazi).German Federal Defence Forces are In use to Iron Cross now.

General Lee
Jun 23, 2008, 03:48
Reading through this thread reminded me of the old confederate flag controversy down south. This is still a hotly-debtated issue with a lot of people. I'm not sure what the answer is really.

Just because you lose a battle or war, do you have to try to erase your own past and history as well?

Do the victors win that much of a victory?

Astroboy
Jul 26, 2008, 00:51
Kyokujituki (many-rays rising sun flag) is much better than ordinary J-flag coz it indicates "rising sun".

http://www.wa-pedia.com/images/content/SDF-kyokujitsu.jpg

http://www.wa-pedia.com/images/content/kamikaze.gif

Astroboy
Jul 26, 2008, 01:36
COOL Kyokujitu-Ki -2

It is also a symbol of Japanese Navy today.

http://news.sosol.com.cn/news/html/xhtml/NewsImages/20061108/20061108143742205.jpg

Very COOL.

grapefruit
Sep 8, 2008, 15:24
It is almost puzzling why there is always an argument of comparing the course of action that Japan should take to what other countries do (e.g. Germany)? If there is a proper reason for doing something, the existence of precedence should matter.

When it comes to the issue of the flag, people of some countries have strong negative reactions to the flag. It is the best interest of Japan to stop using it and to bring an end to the vicious cycle of continuously evoking the horrifying past. Even if such action is taken as a sign of yielding to foreign pressures, what can the government gain by sticking to this tradition? It is just a flag. Abolishing the flag will gain more trust of the neighboring countries.

Astroboy
Sep 10, 2008, 21:29
http://ca.c.yimg.jp/news/20080625195655/img.news.yahoo.co.jp/images/20080625/scn/20080625-00000053-scn-cn-view-000.jpg

In June 2008, Japanese Naval Escort arrives at a port of Guangdong province of China, carrying "Kyokujitsuki" - a symbol of J-Navy.

grapefruit
Sep 19, 2008, 11:55
I wonder how people in Guangdong would have reacted if they had known...

I thought this was funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanada.png

I meant this. I found this the other day at the Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanada.png

Uncle Frank
Sep 19, 2008, 23:18
In the US, they are always argueing free speech VS flag desecration. I remember during the Vietnam era, some protesters wore the US flag as dipers. I always thought this would make a good US flag:

akita
Oct 17, 2008, 21:45
It is almost puzzling why there is always an argument of comparing the course of action that Japan should take to what other countries do (e.g. Germany)? If there is a proper reason for doing something, the existence of precedence should matter.
When it comes to the issue of the flag, people of some countries have strong negative reactions to the flag. It is the best interest of Japan to stop using it and to bring an end to the vicious cycle of continuously evoking the horrifying past. Even if such action is taken as a sign of yielding to foreign pressures, what can the government gain by sticking to this tradition? It is just a flag. Abolishing the flag will gain more trust of the neighboring countries.

Ok i know people who have a much stronger reaction when they see American flag. Should USA abolish its own flag? I think that although there are nations that might be offended by this japanese symbol there was never a reason for violence or something else. On the other hand American flag is almost daily burned, in violent events so should the country start using something else as a flag?

Great Britain was also an empire but I don t thing they will change very soon the flag.

grapefruit
Oct 17, 2008, 23:54
Ok i know people who have a much stronger reaction when they see American flag. Should USA abolish its own flag? I think that although there are nations that might be offended by this japanese symbol there was never a reason for violence or something else. On the other hand American flag is almost daily burned, in violent events so should the country start using something else as a flag?
Great Britain was also an empire but I don t thing they will change very soon the flag.

We are talking about the 16-rays rising sun flag in this thread. Abolishing the national flag is not being discussed. So, the example of the US national flag has little significance.

caster51
Oct 18, 2008, 09:40
When it comes to the issue of the flag, people of some countries have strong negative reactions to the flag. It is the best interest of Japan to stop using it and to bring an end to the vicious cycle of continuously evoking the horrifying past

it is the worst interest of Japan to do that

Azuma_Fujin
Oct 18, 2008, 14:27
Politics aside, i love the 15 ray flag, i think it's beautiful and has a beautiful striking design. It reminds me of the sun in all it's glory, not really of Japan.

I believe that Japan has every right to keep the flag as it's a part of their history, good or bad. We, as non-citizens have no right to tell them to keep it or not, and as it's a naval flag, what difference does it really make? Does it really get on the person's goat that they keep this flag? Is it really that important? I like it much better than the poached egg (hinomaru) and think if it should be the national flag, but that's just my opinion. :)

Sorry, correction: 16 ray flag... ;)

grapefruit
Oct 18, 2008, 23:51
Politics aside, i love the 15 ray flag, i think it's beautiful and has a beautiful striking design. It reminds me of the sun in all it's glory, not really of Japan.
Personally, I like the design too. But, I still oppose to keep the flag as the navel flag to be considerate to Japan's neighboring countries.



I believe that Japan has every right to keep the flag as it's a part of their history, good or bad.


I concur with Japan's right to keep the flag, but I don't think Jewish people would feel happy if Germany claimed their Nazi flag resorting to this line of argument. How the flag was symbolized during the WWII has significant meaning to those who suffered from atrocities inflicted by the Japanese military. The blanket argument that Japan has every right to the flag ignores the fact that the flag conjures up Japanese militarism in the WWII among Chinese and some other Asians.



We, as non-citizens have no right to tell them to keep it or not,

It's okay. We are just discussing. It is more meaningful and interesting to hear non-citizens' opinions.:-)



it's a naval flag, what difference does it really make?

Exactly, it's just a naval flag. It virtually does not make any difference to the average Japanese person's life. In fact, I did not know that the flag was still the official naval flag before I stumbled upon this thread. The fact the Asahi newspaper still carries this flag will probably attract more attention of common people in Japan.



Does it really get on the person's goat that they keep this flag?

Yes it does (by the way, this is my first time to encounter this expression). You can easily find out how Chinese react by asking your Chinese neighbors in Australia.

Astroboy
Oct 19, 2008, 02:20
"Flags" are often burned.

http://ashwinibhatia.com/images/113.jpg

Chinese Five Starred Red Flag is burned in Tibet, Europe, USA, etc.
US Stars & Stripes is burned in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Azuma_Fujin
Oct 19, 2008, 02:32
How the flag was symbolized during the WWII has significant meaning to those who suffered from atrocities inflicted by the Japanese military

I realise that. My grandfather fought in WWII against the Japanese, he was shot in the shoulder. He had nightmares every night of his life after the war, and eventually ended up crazy because of it! My mum did not see her dad for the first time until the war ended.

I can understand that some people have a problem with it. However, Japan and Germany are separate countries, even if they were allies in the war. In my opinion the two are not linked.

I know Japan did some horrendous things during the war, i've read many books, watched many movies, have done research, and most of all have listened to my grandfather's tales of horror of things he witnessed during his time fighting them.

I can't hold my Japanese husband accountable for what those people did in the war, it was a different time, a different mindset. So i don't think that a flag that was used back then for the military, even if it is used now for the military, has the same meaning.

That's my opinion. I respect your right to yours. :)

caster51
Oct 19, 2008, 10:58
if Germany claimed their Nazi flag resorting to this line of argument. How the flag was symbolized during the WWII has significant meaning to those who suffered from atrocities inflicted by the Japanese milita

what does the Japanese military flag have to do with Nazi's flag?

grapefruit
Oct 19, 2008, 14:45
However, Japan and Germany are separate countries, even if they were allies in the war. In my opinion the two are not linked.
I never linked the two countries. I was trying to show that the German case obviously took into consideration how people who suffered the atrocities react to the Nazi flag. Japan can also be considerate to the countries that Japan inflected damage to during the war. Of course there is no obligation. Japan has every right to keep the flag. But, I thought Japanese people took pride in being considerate to others and were sensitive to the feelings of others. I did not know Japan cared so much about rights. I thought the country cared more about harmony, unlike the US, which overemphasizes self-interest. That's at least what I learned when I was there. Maybe Japanese people are considerate to others only within the borders of the country. If this was the case, I would certainly be disappointed.



I can't hold my Japanese husband accountable for what those people did in the war, it was a different time, a different mindset.
I never said your Japanese husband needs to be held accountable for what Japan did in the past. I, as a Japanese national who never experienced the war, do not want to be held accountable, either. I'm simply saying the rising sun flag has too much negative meaning in it. At least, we know that Chinese connects it with Japanese militarism.




So i don't think that a flag that was used back then for the military, even if it is used now for the military, has the same meaning.
Of course, from the Japanese point of view, it does not mean the same thing, but from the Chinese side's view, it still symbolizes the same Japanese militarism. Since the flag is certainly used for communication purposes (it is used to identify Japanese naval ships by both Japan and other countries), its meaning is shaped by all parties. Besides, we agree that the naval flag is not something Japanese people care much, so why not choose a totally new flag, which has no possibility of offending people? (If we were talking about abolishing the national "hinomaru" flag, I would certainly not want to abolish it. However, we should also be aware that even the hinomaru flag conjures up the Japanese militarism in many Chinese. Anyway, this is off topic.) Whether one supports or opposes the rising sun flag, the flag surely offends Chinese. Why would one like to keep offending others by insisting on something unimportant?

caster51
Oct 19, 2008, 21:58
Why would one like to keep offending others by insisting on something unimportant?
why dose Japan care about the chinese and korea.
I think USA is not such childish
it is not unimportant because The Self Defense Forces itself is unpleasant for them

grapefruit
Oct 20, 2008, 01:35
why dose Japan care about the chinese and korea.

My position is that Japan should be considerate to all people in the world. Thus, my concern for Japan's international relationship is not limited to China and Korea. When it comes to the issue of the rising sun flag, the greatest impact will be felt by Chinese and Koreans, and some Asians. That's all.



I think USA is not such childish

If you are referring to childish behavior of China and Korea in relation to Yasukuni, textbook policy, border conflicts, and demand for apology, I have a different view on each case, and I don't have space here for explaining them. It is also inappropriate to put everything under "childish behavior". Some are childish and others are not.



it is not unimportant because The Self Defense Forces itself is unpleasant for them
Can you elaborate on this?

caster51
Oct 21, 2008, 10:16
Can you elaborate on this?

The Self Defense Forces itself is military forces of the defense.
It is not a sign of friendship.

Thus, my concern for Japan's international relationship is not limited to China and Korea
They will not violate territorial waters.
I think it is good for Japan.
Japan should not be related to them.
Japan should keep a distance and look at them
The flag will look like the ghost for enemy.
I think you should study about sinocentrism.




If you are referring to childish behavior of China and Korea in relation to Yasukuni, textbook policy, border conflicts, and demand for apology

Japan never complain of Textbook of other country, etc..

grapefruit
Oct 21, 2008, 12:06
The Self Defense Forces itself is military forces of the defense.
It is not a sign of friendship.
They will not violate territorial waters.

First, I agree that the SDF is not a charity organization. But, since it now engages in PKO activity, it has possibilities to get into territorial waters in parts of Asia that still harbor negative sentiments toward Japan from WWII. Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of engaging in peackeeping operations if the ship was not welcomed because it carries the rising sun flag? If I remember correctly, Japan's offer to send relief materials to China in the aftermath of the Suchuan Earthquake was turned down because of anti-Japanese sentiments held by common Chinese people. Carrying the rising sun flag is one way to brew distrust among Chinese, Koreans, and some other Asians. Since Japan wants to engage in PKO activity to improve the image of the country, isn't it counter-productive to keep the symbol?

Another reason why the idea of keeping the flag seems unattractive to me is because I do not understand why the SDF has to have a navy or army symbol. I am not naive enough to claim that the SDF is not serving as military forces. I know it is de facto military forces, but at least, on the surface, it should not be treated as a navy or an army, because the Japanese Constitution prohibits owning neither of them. So the argument that the flag has tradition does not sound constitutionally fit to me. If one wants to claim that the Japanese navy tradition needs to be maintained, the Constitution should be first changed to allow the country to own its navy. (by the way, I'm undecided on this issue.)


The flag will look like the ghost for enemy.
So, are you saying that since the flag looks like a ghost, it is OK to keep hurting others? Whether it looks like a ghost or not, intentionally tormenting others sounds awful. Japanese people all know that the flag evokes the image of Japanese imperialism. Can we find the flag employed in situations that have no association with Japanese imperialism or WWII in modern Japanese society other than the use of the flag by the SDF? Any sensible Japanese knows that the flag will be instantaneously connected in Asians’ minds to Japanese imperialism. Insisting on such a flag, even after realizing its negative impact to other Asians, seem to spell lack of chivalrousness and respect to others.


I think you should study about Sinocentrism.
The discussion probably has little bearing on Sinocentrism. Besides, any country puts itself in the center of its perspective. The US sees themselves as the police of the world. The whole pack of developed countries holds Eurocentrism. Russia wants to maintain its hegemony. Japanese, who maintain that “the shackles of sinocentrism still bind Asian countries like Korea and China,” seem that they themselves want to establish Japanocentrism. Probably Nihonjinron must have some association with that. The reason why Project X captured the hearts of so many Japanese must be relevant too. I have no qualms with such opinions. After all everyone should love their country. Nevertheless, we should all be aware of such behavior to put one’s country in the center is reciprocal. It is strange to claim Sinocentrism is/was the only view present in east Asia. Japan came to establish its knock-off version of Sinocentrism. Why do you think the post of shogun was created? 征夷大将軍, right?


Japan never complain of Textbook of other country, etc..

I think you misread my post...


If you are referring to childish behavior of China and Korea in relation to Yasukuni, textbook policy, border conflicts, and demand for apology, I have a different view on each case, and I don't have space here for explaining them. It is also inappropriate to put everything under "childish behavior". Some are childish and others are not.

I meant by this that some behaviors of China and Korea in relation to Yasukuni, textbook policy, border conflicts, and demand for apology are childish and other behaviors are not.

caster51
Oct 21, 2008, 19:50
If I remember correctly, Japan's offer to send relief materials to China in the aftermath of the Suchuan Earthquake was turned down because of anti-Japanese sentiments held by common Chinese people. Carrying the rising sun flag is one way to brew distrust among Chinese, Koreans
Their face or pride seem to be more important than their ppl's rescue.
which is more important?
flag or rescue ?

Since Japan wants to engage in PKO activity to improve the image of the country, isn't it counter-productive to keep the symbol?
if they request in such condition...


I do not understand why the SDF has to have a navy or army symbol

Japanese people all know that the flag evokes the image of Japanese imperialism
there is no responsibility in symbol.
image is just image. the Japanese is realism
it can change and it can be changed..Japan should do its effort with pleasure for that

Any sensible Japanese knows that the flag will be instantaneously connected in Asians’ minds to Japanese imperialism.
I dont know what sensible Japanese means.
they may hate SDF and Japanese flag, too.
i think they like the chinese flag more than Japanese one


It is strange to claim Sinocentrism is/was the only view present in east Asia. Japan came to establish its knock-off version of Sinocentrism. Why do you think the post of shogun was created? 征夷大将軍, right?
I tnink you dont still understand it.

http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29173

grapefruit
Oct 21, 2008, 23:26
Their face or pride seem to be more important than their ppl's rescue.
which is more important?
flag or rescue ?
So, that's why I say, abolish the flag and rescue them. Throw away narrow-minded pride and become a tolerant, humane, compassionate nation.



there is no responsibility in symbol.
image is just image. the Japanese is realism
it can change and it can be changed..Japan should do its effort with pleasure for that

Could you explain more on this?



I dont know what sensible Japanese means.
they may hate SDF and Japanese flag, too.
i think they like the chinese flag more than Japanese one

What a insensible thing to say. I don't know if there is anybody who does not love his/her country. Even if one says he hates it, there are always parts of him missing his motherland.



I tnink you dont still understand it.
http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29173
Could you point out exactly which parts make you think that I don't still get it? If you put it in this way, our discussion does not go anywhere. I would like to hear your opinions.

akita
Oct 22, 2008, 16:26
We are talking about the 16-rays rising sun flag in this thread. Abolishing the national flag is not being discussed. So, the example of the US national flag has little significance.


It has a lot of significance since the american flag has a much stronger symbolistic in today world then an almost unknown now japanese navy flag. the significance of the flag matters for the case not that is national or not. In fact being national might be consideret even more offencive .

The true is that exept USA and some Asian countries this flag means nothing now.
Anyway try to tell indians not to use svastika now just because the nazi use it on the flag. The the sybol is actually positive for an indian and he will not give up on it just because for us is wrong.

We could ask also The arabs nt to say Allah is the only God and Mohamed is profet because the terrorist atacs.

Azuma_Fujin
Oct 22, 2008, 18:31
Hi Grapefruit,

I never meant any disrespect to you in my posts, it was only my opinion. :)

I didn't mean you should hold anyone accountable, you may have taken me the wrong way, just expressing myself, maybe i should have been more clear. :)

grapefruit
Oct 22, 2008, 20:47
Hi Grapefruit,
I never meant any disrespect to you in my posts, it was only my opinion. :)
I didn't mean you should hold anyone accountable, you may have taken me the wrong way, just expressing myself, maybe i should have been more clear. :)

Sure. I know it was your opinion. And, I did not think your post was disrespectful at all.:-)

grapefruit
Oct 22, 2008, 21:31
It has a lot of significance since the american flag has a much stronger symbolistic in today world then an almost unknown now japanese navy flag.
I agree that the American national flag might be taken as the symbol of the American Imperialism. And, I am aware of flag burning. But, when it comes to national flags, I take the totally opposite stance. I believe that people should respect other countries' national flags as we respect national flags and national anthems in the Olympic Games. I feel it is wrong to burn flags for any reason.


the significance of the flag matters for the case not that is national or not. In fact being national might be consideret even more offencive .
The true is that exept USA and some Asian countries this flag means nothing now.

The rising sun flag is not "an almost unknown now Japanese navy flag." Unfortunately, many people in Asia still recognize the flag. It might be insignificant in the other parts of the world as you pointed out, but in Asia it is not insignificant, and Japan is geographically located in Asia. Besides, the whole Chinese population considers it important (1/6 or 1/5 of the world population, right?). Koreans would probably care. Taiwanese, Singaporeans, Philippines, and Indonesians would possibly respond negatively. I'm not sure about Thai and other countries...sorry I'm not familiar with these countries.



Anyway try to tell indians not to use svastika now just because the nazi use it on the flag. The the sybol is actually positive for an indian and he will not give up on it just because for us is wrong.

First of all, Indian was not involved in the Holocaust. Japan was involved in the atrocities in Asia. That is why, I believe, it is controversial. No matter what excuse Japan has, if the same country which committed the atrocities insisted on using the same flag for almost the same purpose (ensign), it would be hard to convince others that its symbolic meaning is different.

Secondly, the Nazi Swastika as a flag has distinct characteristics. It is painted in black, white, and red and at a 45% rotation. Also, in India, the symbol is not limited to flag use. The SDF, on the other hand, employed for their navel ships the exact same design as before. The rising sun symbol is currently used only for flags by the SDF (except for the case of the Asahi newspaper, as far as I'm aware of :wave:).

Thirdly, I think any sensible Indian would be considerate to the feelings of Jewish people. Indians would not insist on using the Natzi Swastika flag.



We could ask also The arabs nt to say Allah is the only God and Mohamed is profet because the terrorist atacs.
This is probably out of the scope of our discussion in this thread. It is hard to compare the meaning of flags with religious beliefs.

caster51
Oct 23, 2008, 12:09
I feel it is wrong to burn flags for any reason

I dont think so
some countries dont want to see it though japan is not such childish:blush:


that's why I say, abolish the flag and rescue them. Throw away narrow-minded pride and become a tolerant, humane, compassionate nation.
Japan wanted to halp them...
which is narrow-minded pride? even they would not want to be helped without it


Japan was involved in the atrocities in Asia. That is why, I believe, it is controversial. No matter what excuse Japan has, if the same country which committed the atrocities insisted on using the same flag for almost the same purpose

it was a WAR...
so did USA

grapefruit
Oct 23, 2008, 12:20
I tnink you dont still understand it.
http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29173

So, caster51-san, could you point out exactly which parts make you think that I don't still get it? I'm waiting:-)

caster51
Oct 23, 2008, 12:35
So, caster51-san, could you point out exactly which parts make you think that I don't still get it? I'm waiting

it is simple.
why does Japan care about them like Yasukuni.
it has nothig to do with them even though they dont want

what did japan agaist korea?.
korea has nothing to do with this flag and the atrocities , too

Chidoriashi
Oct 23, 2008, 14:23
it is simple.
why does Japan care about them like Yasukuni.
it has nothig to do with them even though they dont want
what did japan agaist korea?.
korea has nothing to do with this flag and the atrocities , too

aghh.. this is a tired discussion. Grapefruit I recommend you do not even bother to go down this road, it won't go anywhere.

grapefruit
Oct 24, 2008, 07:25
aghh.. this is a tired discussion. Grapefruit I recommend you do not even bother to go down this road, it won't go anywhere.
Thanks:cool: I'll be careful.



korea has nothing to do with this flag and the atrocities , too

It is true that Korea has little relationship with the atrocities committed by the Japanese imperial forces, but the country also has suffered from Japanese Imperialism. Since the flag is a symbol of Japanese Imperialism, their negative reaction toward the rising sun flag is understandable. But, of course, I am not happy with how they treat the Japanese national flag in protests against Japan. Granted, I still don't see any reason why Japan has to degrade oneself by behaving inconsiderately to others. I take the stance that if Japan wants China and Korea to become civilized, sensible neighbors, Japan has to act properly first as a leading model. And I know that such adequate behavior is recognized by some Chinese and Koreans (unfortunately not by the majority...yet).

pipokun
Oct 24, 2008, 23:19
...
Japan has to act properly first as a leading model. And I know that such adequate behavior is recognized by some Chinese and Koreans (unfortunately not by the majority...yet).

This is the same that you intentionally ignore the fact that Japan did act as the leading model in the thread, Japan IN Asia VS Japan AND Asia.
Before Japan agreed and normalized the diplomatic relations with Korea/China, the flag had already existed.

The golden rule to win the janken, rock, paper, scissors, game is to see the result before you show your hand. Why do you think it is fair to blame the flag which had already existed before the year, 1965 for Korea and 1972 for China, NOW?

grapefruit
Oct 24, 2008, 23:47
This is the same that you intentionally ignore the fact that Japan did act as the leading model in the thread, Japan IN Asia VS Japan AND Asia.

I admit that I don't remember well what I wrote in a different thread:relief:...but this is a different thread. Let's not mix posts from different threads, It would be hard to keep track on things if we kept on referring to other thread posts.



...you intentionally ignore the fact that Japan did act as the leading model...

I am not clear about what you meant by this. So, I assume you meant that Japan acted properly first but Korea and China started behaving improperly so that Japan's insistence on the flag is justifiable. It is justifiable but we can also choose to keep behaving in the civil way and choose not to insist on the flag. After all, the rising sun flag itself has little value to the majority of the Japanese people.



Before Japan agreed and normalized the diplomatic relations with Korea/China, the flag had already existed.

I have no qualms about it, but we are not talking if keeping the flag is legal or illegal. Japan has every right to keep the flag. I am simply asserting that keeping the flag has little value.



The golden rule to win the janken, rock, paper, scissors, game is to see the result before you show your hand. Why do you think it is fair to blame the flag which had already existed before the year, 1965 for Korea and 1972 for China, NOW?
I am not blaming the flag or considering that it is fair to blame the flag. Blaming is on the Japanese imperial forces. I am simply suggesting the flag is too stigmatized. Why would one like to carry a stigmatized flag?

caster51
Oct 25, 2008, 13:54
I am not blaming the flag or considering that it is fair to blame the flag. Blaming is on the Japanese imperial forces. I am simply suggesting the flag is too stigmatized. Why would one like to carry a stigmatized flag?

Blaming is on the Japanese imperial forces>
what does it mean?
I dont blam on the Japanese imperial forces.

Why would one like to carry a stigmatized flag?
flag is Just flag like a name.
we cant not change even a stigmatized name for someone
I think it only does the lid to your superficial dirty thing...


The person who doesn't want to see might feel it so.

If it is a stigmatized flag, we should make it a proud one

Buraku is dirty, korean is dirty and criminal is dirty....
they have a dirty image for someone
this image leads discrimination..
it is called a principle of impurity..

grapefruit
Oct 26, 2008, 00:58
Blaming is on the Japanese imperial forces>
what does it mean?
I dont blam on the Japanese imperial forces.
Really?:shock: Then, you wouldn't consider yourself as an "ultra-super-right-wing" person, would you? I'm still shocked...

If you did not agree with the claim that the blame is on the Japanese Imperial forces, I suppose there would be no point for discussion in this thread. What do you think? If I did not agree with the claim, I would not want to abolish the flag. I got the impression that we at least agreed on this:?

So, is it true that you take the stance that Japan does not bear any responsibility for the war crimes? A few ways to avoid the responsibility came to mind.

One way is to deny the claim, saying, "No atrocities took place." Some might even say it is all propaganda from China and Korea.

Another way to deny the responsibility is to say war always leads to atrocities, since the term atrocity is subjective. This is true, but we are not talking about whether or not it was inevitable. Japan did engage in war against China. So, I suppose somebody from Japan was responsible.

So, what is your stance on the issue?:?



Why would one like to carry a stigmatized flag?
flag is Just flag like a name.
we cant not change even a stigmatized name for someone
First of all, personal names and flags are different. Indeed, the SDF can change the flag legally if it wants to. No one says it is illegal. Besides, even names can be rejected if they are inappropriate. Do you remember the "悪魔君" case? (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%82%AA%E9%AD%94%E3%81%A1%E3%82%83%E3%82%93%E5%9 1%BD%E5%90%8D%E9%A8%92%E5%8B%95 (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%82%AA%E9%AD%94%E3%81%A1%E3%82%83%E3%82%93%E5%9 1%BD%E5%90%8D%E9%A8%92%E5%8B%95))



If it is a stigmatized flag, we should make it a proud one
This comment kind of suggests that you agree with that the blame is on the Japanese Imperial forces... So, I assume you admit some degree of responsibility on Japan's part and I will continue our discussion....:worried:

Here is my reply to the quoted part: it would take 100 years or more to take out the stigma. Probably, it is impossible to achieve such a goal. Think about all those negative connoted racial words, "n***er", "三国人", "Jap", etc... In theory, you could change the image, but people don't usually do that.



Buraku is dirty, korean is dirty and criminal is dirty....
they have a dirty image for someone
this image leads discrimination..
I believe the discrimination against a certain grope of people mainly causes the term for the group to pick up negative connotations. The process of the word's negative image driving discrimination is most likely to be secondary. I believe "eta" was the original stigmatized term but
the government, back then, created the non-stigmatized term. Ever since, the term has been widely used. In the process, it picked up the negative image once again, because some Japanese still discriminate against them (I heard it is particularly the case on the western side of Japan).

Also, it does not make sense to link people's reaction to the flag to discriminating words in language. The way the flag is negatively viewed has little relationship with discrimination.



it is called a principle of impurity..
I'm not familiar with that principle... Could you tell me what it is?:relief:

caster51
Oct 26, 2008, 01:38
Then, do you consider yourself an "ultra-super-right-wing" person? I'm still shocked...

It was Just WAR.
of couese, there is a responsibility for them that Japan was lost...


Besides, even names can be rejected if they are inappropriate. Do you remember the "悪魔君" case?

悪魔君 has nothing to do with that?
what relation does akumakun have with flag? family name cant change
that flag is not akumakun for the Japanese.


"n***er", "三国人", "Jap", etc... In theory, you could change the image, but people don't usually do that.

I dont know n**er? ask americam
sangokujin ,Do you know what does it mean?
Jap, i dont care at all.


because some Japanese still discriminate against them
Being discriminated becomes money.
they insist it themselves because of money..


it does not make sense to link people's reaction to the flag to discriminating words in language. The way the flag is negatively viewed has little relationship with discrimination
past negative viewed as your dirty image makes discrimination in your mind.
i dont want to see it . I hate it.....
indeed Nazi's flag makes you image of racist and discrimination ,right?


So, is it true that you take the stance that Japan does not bear any responsibility for the war crimes? A few ways to avoid the responsibility came to mind.

my stance is as same as ..
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Milano-Aoyama/6915/

grapefruit
Oct 26, 2008, 02:20
It was Just WAR.
of couese, there is a responsibility for them that Japan was lost...
OK. I got your view.



Being discriminated becomes money.
they insist it themselves because of money..

I wouldn't say such an awful thing to someone who has experienced discrimination. Perhaps, you have never experienced discrimination of any sort.

caster51
Oct 26, 2008, 11:50
I wouldn't say such an awful thing to someone who has experienced discrimination. Perhaps, you have never experienced discrimination of any sort.

I imagin there are full of discrimination by dirty image in your background.
poor man.

pipokun
Oct 26, 2008, 18:07
Grapefruit, how do you explain the following history.

1. The flag already exited in 1954 before the following peace treaties with Japan and China/Korea which ended the war and war-related reparation.
2. South Korea and Japan normalized the relations in 1965. So did it with China in 1972.
3. Mysteriously some Korean/Chinese are always pretending, I think, that Japan would have not done anything to their country after the war.

grapefruit
Oct 27, 2008, 13:13
Grapefruit, how do you explain the following history.
1. The flag already exited in 1954 before the following peace treaties with Japan and China/Korea which ended the war and war-related reparation.

First, let me ensure what you meant by your first point. I gather you are pointing out the fact that China and Korea signed the peace treaties without objection to the flag Japan had already started to use by then. Is this what you meant?

To begin with, I don't understand why the peace treaties have something to do with it. We are talking about whether or not Japan should voluntarily stop using the flag, right? The Korean or Chinese government is not demanding the Japanese government to abolish the flag. So, legality has no significance. Any Japanese person can voice their opinion on the US government's possession of nuclear weapons, despite the fact that Japan signed with the US the peace treaty which contained no objection to the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan did not object to the treaty, but surely people in Japan can voice their objection to the US's use of nuclear weapons.



2. South Korea and Japan normalized the relations in 1965. So did it with China in 1972.
I think the answer to Point 1 explained why these facts have little bearing to abolishing the flag.



3. Mysteriously some Korean/Chinese are always pretending, I think, that Japan would have not done anything to their country after the war.
Are you saying that some Koreans and Chinese always express the idea that Japan did not contribute to the development their countries after the end of WWII? Did you bring up this topic, because you feel personally upset by this? Grow up. There are going to be always people like that. Insisting on the flag and upsetting the entire Chinese and Korean peoples as a retaliation would be an unwise, dangerous behavior. What can we gain by reacting to narrow minded people? If Japan were to start to fall into this childish psychology of "because he did it first, I should be allowed to do it in return", isn't it the same as becoming what you called "some Korean/Chinese"?

pipokun
Oct 27, 2008, 20:53
First, let me ensure what you meant by your first point. I gather you are pointing out the fact that China and Korea signed the peace treaties without objection to the flag Japan had already started to use by then. Is this what you meant?
To begin with, I don't understand why the peace treaties have something to do with it. We are talking about whether or not Japan should voluntarily stop using the flag, right? The Korean or Chinese government is not demanding the Japanese government to abolish the flag. So, legality has no significance.

It is simply because the foreign relations are based on the bilateral treaties, the treaties bind each government and the flag is not a personal one, but the official one.

You are right that the Korean/Chinese has not demanded the abolishment and all parties did not see it as an obstacle to build relations of perpetual peace and friendship between the two, so both parties reached agreements.


Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China
September 29, 1972
6. The Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China agree to establish relations of perpetual peace and friendship between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.htmlLet me show you a good example in this forum.
Just search a poster named Lexico here, and you will find lots of his great posts. I still highly rate his English skill as well as debating skill, but unfortunately he's gone after the Korean government disclosed its secret diplomatic documents to the public that Japan did much to his country when the both parties normalized the relations in 1965.

I just wished to see how he would reconstruct his argument after he knew the post-war fact...

I heard a lot of opinions sounding good so many times, "we forgive, but never forget", "future-oriented", and etc. It does not matter if you are "no forgive, no forget" or a history binding person and, of course, you have right to express your opinion, but I don't wrap it as "upsetting the entire Chinese and Korean peoples". The people in charge of the treaties also constituted a part of the entire Chinese/Koreans, didn't they?

Don't worry I don't think two wrongs make a right at all, but the world may be slightly better if all countries follow what Japan did and did not in the post-war period. I simply think it sounds a bit unfair if you don't take some post-war history into account.



We are talking about whether or not Japan should voluntarily stop using the flag, right?You did not give me the answer why the great volunteer spirit you may call is applied only to Japan. I am waiting for it.

Astroboy
Nov 23, 2008, 00:17
The Japanese 16-rays rising sun flag in Italy.
http://www.geocities.jp/jw_mura/tomo/129.jpg

Some see it as a fashionable design?

Astroboy
Nov 23, 2008, 00:23
Another idea to use The Japanese 16-rays rising sun flag.

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200608/10/57/b0019557_1922283.jpg

In a way, it's more fashionable than other flags.

Astroboy
Nov 23, 2008, 00:36
Company flag of Asashi Shimbun (newspaper), known as the most famous Pro-China newspaper in Japan, is based on The Japanese Navy's 16-rays rising sun flag.

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CDJ67YA6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU09_.jpg

Very ironic, isn't it? :blush:

JerseyBoy
Nov 23, 2008, 16:27
The Japanese 16-rays rising sun flag in Italy.
http://www.geocities.jp/jw_mura/tomo/129.jpg
Some see it as a fashionable design?
It could be a sinking sun, depending on the perspective.

Astroboy
Nov 23, 2008, 18:25
New design for the rising sun flag.
http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/mkz/imgs/2/8/288411d7.jpg
at F1 Suzuka Grand Prix in 2006.

Astroboy
Nov 23, 2008, 18:33
Another fashionable rising sun flag....

http://www004.upp.so-net.ne.jp/teikoku-denmo/graphics/photo/vicki_chao.jpg

A Chinese model wearing the Japanese 16-rays rising sun flag. I envy the flag.

Astroboy
Nov 23, 2008, 18:51
And Somebody made this .... at http://patdollard.com/2008/05/audacity-or-obamination/

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/obamaforward8.jpg

Maybe Obama fits with it as he must be the rising sun in the country.

hogdriver
Dec 6, 2008, 12:43
interesting topic for sure. Should they abandon and forget the lesson their grandfathers earned and learned by taking us on in WWII by burying that flag design?

Hell NO!

let them remember the lesson learned by their grandpapas.

If they bury that flag and massive defeat associated with it...the US should outlaw the stars and bars as well at the same time.

Fly that flag as a reminder forever I say.

Let it NEVER be forgotten.


The rising sun will set again if it ever turns on it's american friends and benefactors again in cold blood too.

It is not wise to try to eat the hand that feeds and nutures you imo.

Give thanks and blessing instead and strive to repay somehow the debt you owe them, so that someday you may be able to look them in square in the eye as an equal, instead of bowing to them as an superior who bailed ya out and showed you mercy when you did not deserve it.

That is what I would do.:relief::(

Astroboy
Dec 6, 2008, 20:50
I personally believe that Tibetan's flag has some similarity with the Japanese rising sun flag.
http://shadow-city.blogzine.jp/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/19/tibet.jpg

:wave:

Hermit Crab
Dec 6, 2008, 20:59
# Across the dark blue sky six red bands spread representing the original ancestors of the Tibetan people: the six tribes called Se, Mu, Dong, Tong, Dru and Ra which in turn gave the [twelve] descendants. The combination of six red bands (for the tribes) and six dark blue bands for the sky represents the incessant enactment of the virtuous deeds of protection of the spiritual teachings and secular life by the black and red guardian protector deities with which Tibet has had connection for a very long time.
# At the tip of the snow mountain, the sun with its rays brilliantly shining in all directions represents the equal enjoyment of freedom, spiritual and material happiness and prosperity by all beings in the land of Tibet.

via Wikipedia

How does this resemble the flag of the Japanese Imperial Army (1870-1945), the Japanese Imperial Navy (1889-1945), and currently the Japanese Maritime Self-defense Forces?

hogdriver
Dec 7, 2008, 01:05
via Wikipedia
How does this resemble the flag of the Japanese Imperial Army (1870-1945), the Japanese Imperial Navy (1889-1945), and currently the Japanese Maritime Self-defense Forces?
It would be very cruel to try to bury and erase the Japanese people's history, for the losses, mistakes and miscalculations of their leaders and Emperor. Mistakes made because Japan was desperate to colonize, feed, and find more land and resources for it's overcrowded population...AS they seen and watched England, France, Spain, and the Dutch do when they faced the same problem!
I understand their plight that still plagues that nation today, probably even worse now than it was in the 30's before they started making their moves to take a little of China. Japan HAS to be allowed to grow...but they cannot get the land and resources they need without taking someone else's.
That is the number one biggest hurdle facing Japan today, one that will need to be addressed again by the entire earth in the VERY near future.
Lets just hope they don't fly the Rising Sun again to solve the problem.
That would be VERY bad for everyone...as they now have an out of this world industrial capacity, a loyal, brave, extremely intelligent and deperate people who stick together, and the much wisdom learned from their mistakes and failures in II.
I would much rather they just swindle me out of my land and resources, than ever go military again.
The next time Japan goes military, nobody will see the attack coming until it is already over and they have conquered the entire earth....then it will be too late to try to resist. Think about that.
I hope and pray the Rising Sun remains Japan's history.

hogdriver
Dec 7, 2008, 05:32
And adding to that...

No offense to anyone but, If I were Akihito and had his resources, and I realized that I would not be able to swindle everyone on earth to get the land and resources we needed, and HAD to go military again to secure our assets...

You wouldn't even know we went military, until the closest surviving person to your god was signing the unconditional surrender paperwork in front of the entire earth.

This is all going to be in my debut, soon to be released, Tom Clancy type military thriller.

Watch for it at your local bookstore....but don't try to get me to to give away who is is going to win WWIII in it....(That will remain MOST SECRET)

You will have to buy my book for that.

And absolutely ALL the profits will be donated and put toward paying off my beloved nation's national debt...since we obviously are highly into handouts and charity these days so much.

I just want to be able to look Akihito square in the eye again someday...that will be plenty of payment enough for me. I can't do that when we owe him so much money.

Drew-san
Dec 7, 2008, 05:39
Well that couldn't and won't happen, but I do think Japan needs to buy some land from another nation.

grapefruit
Dec 7, 2008, 06:59
I understand their plight that still plagues that nation today, probably even worse now than it was in the 30's before they started making their moves to take a little of China. Japan HAS to be allowed to grow...but they cannot get the land and resources they need without taking someone else's.
That is the number one biggest hurdle facing Japan today, one that will need to be addressed again by the entire earth in the VERY near future.


I don't think land is an issue anymore. The whole population is decreasing. What they need is children, who contribute to maintaining labor forces. (sorry this was off-topic).

Astroboy
Dec 7, 2008, 10:16
And adding to that...
No offense to anyone but, If I were Akihito and had his resources, and I realized that I would not be able to swindle everyone on earth to get the land and resources we needed, and HAD to go military again to secure our assets...
You wouldn't even know we went military, until the closest surviving person to your god was signing the unconditional surrender paperwork in front of the entire earth.
This is all going to be in my debut, soon to be released, Tom Clancy type military thriller.
Watch for it at your local bookstore....but don't try to get me to to give away who is is going to win WWIII in it....(That will remain MOST SECRET)
You will have to buy my book for that.
And absolutely ALL the profits will be donated and put toward paying off my beloved nation's national debt...since we obviously are highly into handouts and charity these days so much.
I just want to be able to look Akihito square in the eye again someday...that will be plenty of payment enough for me. I can't do that when we owe him so much money.

Post-war histroy clearly indicates ..... IF Imperial Japan could have established the Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere,

1. Korean did not need to kill each other, and Noth Korean do not need to starve to death today, either.
2. Chinese did not need to go civil war, and not suffer from Cultural Revolution nor tyranny, either.
3. Almost all Chinese & Korean must have been enjoying better life than today.

History is always IRONY, isn't it? :blush:

JerseyBoy
Dec 7, 2008, 18:40
Post-war histroy clearly indicates ..... IF Imperial Japan could have established the Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere,
1. Korean did not need to kill each other, and Noth Korean do not need to starve to death today, either.
2. Chinese did not need to go civil war, and not suffer from Cultural Revolution nor tyranny, either.
3. Almost all Chinese & Korean must have been enjoying better life than today.
History is always IRONY, isn't it? :blush:
No history will indicate what could have happened.:blush: Even though I have a Japanese passport, I am glad Japan lost the WW2.:p (as I prefer the Western/North American cultures better --- of course, not to mention the atrocities the Japanese Imperial Army could have inflicted under the pretense of that co-prosperity sphere non-sense.

Astroboy
Dec 7, 2008, 23:33
No history will indicate what could have happened.:blush: Even though I have a Japanese passport, I am glad Japan lost the WW2.:p (as I prefer the Western/North American cultures better --- of course, not to mention the atrocities the Japanese Imperial Army could have inflicted under the pretense of that co-prosperity sphere non-sense.
But I sometimes really think ... history is irony.
Because USA attained victory over Japan, regardless of their wish, USA had to stay in Asia and get involved with Asian region. And then it experienced Vietnamese war, Korean war, and other conflicts in the region. Maybe they will say that it was a part of Cold War, but in my perspective, US strength had been deteriorated in accordance with those series of involvement in Asia.
Meanwhile, Japan could have continued to keep distance from those troubles, thanking to Article 9, which USA wanted to put into Japanese constitution.
Eventually Article 9 helps us keep distance from danger but let us focus on economy.
IF Japan established the Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, Japan must have kept fighting today..... like USA.... :blush:
History is irony, indeed. :-)

hogdriver
Dec 8, 2008, 07:38
What is so wrong with a Rising Sun anyway?

Sure beats a setting one imo.

Further, Japan has already bought alot of land and resources from other nations, and has been doing so for quite some time now.

HD

ashigaru
Jan 4, 2009, 07:27
This argument is very similar to the national flag argument that has long been discussed since the end of WW2 in Japan. Of course the difference is that this argument is about naval flag, but there is only a minor difference between national flag and naval flag especially since both are portrayal of Rising Sun anyway.

From what I skimmed so far, the misunderstandings or dissidents seems to come from the definition of "Imperialism". You can call territorial
expansion since acquisition of Taiwan(or Okinawa, if you wanna go extreme) "imperialism", and surely they were, but Japanese doesn't necessarily consider these as "atrocities" that we had commited.

So, I don't agree that the 16 rays rising sun only symbolizes japanese imperialsm.
It "also" symbolizes historic triumph of Combined fleet over Baltic fleet, and many other sacrifices that sailors dedicated to the country. Thus it conveys very emotional attachment from service men.

I see many people in this thread say that the naval flag is "trivial thing" and Japanese relation with Asia should be put more weights, but you know in your country how the war veterans and military officials respect their symbols and rituals. I don't see why it become "OK" to deprive them of those things if it's a trivial matter except for the military themselves, and possibly some other foreigners, who most likely are not the direct victims but more likely the youngsters susceptible to their own nationalism.


>2. Chinese did not need to go civil war, and not suffer from Cultural Revolution nor tyranny, either.
I'm completely clueless of where this comes from. Chinese were in civil war before the Empire invaded the mainland.
It is true that Chinese people would had not been suffered from Cultural Revolution without Japanese invasion, but same thing is true
if Allied Nations hadn't supported the Nationalists. And the reign of Nationalists were cruel too like Communists. Ask Taiwanese.

Those who bring up the resemblance to Nazi Swastika, check out the German Airforce's roundel(marking on airplanes).

Drew-san
Jan 4, 2009, 09:23
So, I don't agree that the 16 rays rising sun only symbolizes japanese imperialsm.
It "also" symbolizes historic triumph of Combined fleet over Baltic fleet, and many other sacrifices that sailors dedicated to the country. Thus it conveys very emotional attachment from service men.
:cool:Agreed.:cool:

Ukonkivi
Jan 4, 2009, 09:35
To me, it just means an even more shining rising sun.
And to me, that rising sun symbolizes a god which I worship and adore.

So, no.
By the way, I love the Nazi flag as well. And am glad I could wear it in Japan legally.

ASHIKAGA
Jan 6, 2009, 16:47
To me, it just means an even more shining rising sun.
And to me, that rising sun symbolizes a god which I worship and adore.

So, no.
By the way, I love the Nazi flag as well. And am glad I could wear it in Japan legally.

Good for you.

OK, NEEEEEEXT!!!!

EdZiomek
Jan 16, 2009, 07:11
I am very often, validly criticized for my gover the toph theories, and so be it!
But the 16-pointed Japanese flag is so ancient, so historic, my vote is emphatically, do not let it go!

Too much of all of our ancestries are thrown away for one feeble reason or another.

I say the 16-pointed star represented at one time, the Goddess Ishtar, whose sacred numbers included 15 and 16. More modern versions of Ishtar were the evolved gVenush whose sacred number was 5.

http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/WLGilgameshRG.html
gIshtar — the goddess of love, protection, and war; she is armed with a quiver and a bow, and rides a lion
Symbol: an 8- or 16-pointed star; Venus and Sirius
Sacred Number: 15"

Venus/Ishtar of course rises before sunrise, with the rising sun, then escorts the sun at sunset, into the night. Chee Pan, Chipango, Shippan, Japan... Origin of the Spirits, Land where the sun first rises, Land of the Rising Sun!

If you play the ancient sacred mathematics games, the sacred number 16 was the sum total of the prime numbers 1, 3,5, and 7, which for Pythagoras and others carried much more meaning in those days, when mathematics was pure Godliness.

Our New Mexico flag is a derivation, I believe, of this 16 rays of light.

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/3481/flagnewmexico888ks5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/flagnewmexico888ks5.jpg/1/w288.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img48/flagnewmexico888ks5.jpg/1/)

Of course, the purists of the world can now scream...hBut you have no proofh, and I concede, dispatch me now, please!

Save the rising sun. It is my heritage too!

Administrative question... which image hosting services are the other posters using? It is better than mine.

mobile1
Apr 20, 2009, 11:07
The rising sun flag (below) is not the same as the sun disc flag (hinomaru) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinomaru). It was used by the Japanese Navy and Army during Japan's invasion and occupation of Asia between 1895 and 1945, and is still used as the official naval flag of Japan (including the SDF). It is one of the most powerful symbol of the 20-30 million deaths that Japan caused around Asia during this period. In other words it is the equivalent of the Nazi swasitka flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Nazi_Germany). However, it would be unthinkable for Germany to use the Nazi flag nowadays, even as a naval ensign.
http://www.wa-pedia.com/images/content/rising_sun_flag.gif
Here is an explanation from Wikipedia's article on Japanese nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nationalism) :
Kyokujitsu-ki(the sun-with rays-flag) or "Japanese war banner". It was the ensign of the Imperial Japanese Navy; and also, one of best-known Japanese nationalist symbols from the First Chinese-Japanese War (1894-95) to the Pacific War (1941-45). This flag was sometimes also used by the Imperial Japanese Army on land, and is now employed by Japanese right-nationalist groups as well as the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces.
Should Japan continue to use the Rising Sun flag without fearing to cause anger in other Asian countries ? Would a modern, civilised and humanitarian country use a flag that reminds of its own atrocities during WWII ?

Why not bring Japan to the Commonwealth and add the Union Jack on the corner of its flag!:D I wonder better yet, how many Japanese people would appreciate the honour of joing up with the United Kingdom? I wonder how many percent of the Japanese would accept? This would enable to be a member of the EU. (And they won't have to so vulnerable to US interests!) Every developed nation in the world is either in either the EU, NAFTA, or NATO, except Japan. As a developed nation, they should be allowed to join up in one of these major organizations.

EdZiomek
May 6, 2009, 01:23
More on the 16 rays of the sun, and Venus, this time from the book...

Voyages of the Pyramid Builders, pages 73, 74, 75... Dr. Robert M. Schoch and Robert Aquinas McNally...

"Some of the pyramid temples of the Maya are oriented to the planet Venus, which in their mythology was identifiedwith the great god Quetzalcoatl. In their complex way of reckoning time, the Maya began their calendar with the "birth" of Venus, an event they dated in modern terms to approximately August 12, 3114. The House of the Governor of Uxmal is one of a number of Mayan monuments that show an alignment to Venus. An observer standing in one of the doorways at dawn would have seen Venus rise as the morning star above the top of a solitary mound about three and a half miles away as the planet reached its southerly extreme in A.D. 750. Temple I at Tikal marks a point in the sky where Venus periodically aligns with Jupiter.

Venus, which in Mesopotamia was the heavenly form of the love goddess known as Ishtar, Aphrodite, and Inanna, mayh have played a central role in the retainer-burial rituals of Ur. When Sir Charles Leonard Wooley excavated the royal tombs, he wondered why they numbered 16 over a period of approximately 150 years represented by Dynasty 1 of Ur. The number 16 has a certain aesthetic precision to it, as the square of a square (2x2x2, or 4x4 =16).

Over a 128 year period, the sun, the moon, and the planet Venus come into conjunction 16 times at regular intervals. Possibly every time this happened, the Sumerians changed Kings."

**********
My own note, that Venus transcends across the face of the Sun every 124 years, as if "cutting its head off", the last visible time was 2004.

More on this as I find them....