Originally posted by domonkassyu:yeah they are usually hot..but they are polite becuz they are back stabbers..they complain behind your back..never confront in front of you..
becuz they are back stabbers?
i am not sure about this statement, but please do read this by Senko Maynard:
Language in Face-to-Face Interaction: Conversation analysis
Linguistics-oriented analysis of face-to-face interaction began with the publication of Tannen's (1984) book. Using a tape-recorded Thanksgiving dinner conversation as data, Tannen identifies "conversational style," which broadly includes linguistics expressions and interaction-managing strategies. Tannen's analytical steps are: (i) tape-recording of conversation, (ii) transcription, (iii) observation and analysis of data, (iv) hypothesis, (v) incorporation of input from conversation participants and others, and (vi) verification of hypothesis. After observing the New York Jewish style (called the machine-gun question) and analyzing how it functions in narratives, Tannen characterizes this conversation style as "high-involvement style."
Given that Tannen's study concentrates on a particular occasion of talk (a single event of conversation with multiple participants including Tannen herself), in my own work (Maynard 1986, 1987a, 1989b, 1993b) I examine multiple Japanese (and American English) conversations by using video- amd audio-taped casual conversations (20 pairs of Japanese and 20 pairs of American) among college students. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used for analysis, and both global and local levels of structure and conversation management are investigated. From the global perspective I examine thematic structure by focusing on strategies such as mode of reference and repetition which help structure the interaction-based themes of conversation. I also analyze narratives appearing in the data and show that the narrative is emergent in the conversation, and it is co-created by both story teller and story recipient. Focus is placed on interactional management strategies, turn-taking, back-channeling, and head movement. Functions and frequencies of these interactional behaviours are identified and discussed, and it is emphasized that all are significant in structuring the self-contextualization processes of Japanese interaction.
In general, conversation analysis adopts the analytical method developed by ethnomethodologists. Rather than sentences or utterances, conversation analysis considers primary the units of interaction (e.g. turns, back-channels) and their sequencing in conversation. Particularly useful are related concepts of adjacency-pair, conditional relevance, and preference organization. Interaction in conversation is locally organized as a connected pair, such as a question followed by an answer. This expected preferred sequencing of action (i.e. one example of preferene organization) creates a place in the conversational sequence where a certain response become relevant. Thus, conditional relevance means that "given the first, the second is expectable; upon its occurrence it can be seen to be a second item to the first; upon its non-occurrence it can be seen to be officially absent - all this provided sheerly by the occurrence of the first item" (Schegloff 1968: 1083). The concept of sequenced and situated action is the key for analyzing conversational interaction.
In recent years, some aspects of Japanese conversation have continued to be investigated. One of the topics often discussed (especially in Japan) is the back-channel. For example, Kita (1996) elaborates on back-channel-like utterances jointly sent by participants during the inter-turn pause. Ikeda and Ikeda (1996) offer a descriptive system in which different degrees of head nods as well as the duration of eye gaze are plotted along with the transcript, making it easier to describe both verbal and nonverbal behaviour.
Another topic in conversation analysis involves the phenomenon of co-construction. Conversation researchers have often emphasized the collaborative nature of utterance production in English (e.g. conversation as "achievement" as explained by Schegloff 1982). Following this line of inquiry, Ono and Yoshida (1996) investigate co-construction in Japanese informal conversation. It turns out that the co-construction of syntactic units is rare in Japanese, perhaps leaving the collaboration strategies to means other than syntax.
Specific interaction context
Analysis of face-to-face interaction in Japanese has also led to the investigation of specific situations of talk. Three areas in particular have produced interesting results - business negotiation, conflict situation, and the invitation refusal process.
H. Yamada (1990, 1992) examines communication strategies used in Japan-US business discourse. On the basis of tape-recorded multi-party conversations of American, Japanese, and American-Japanese business meetings, Yamada contrasts topic-opening strategies, talk distribution, and back-channel strategies across these settings. Using the idea of "cross-talk," Yamada analyzes data by adopting interpretive, comparative, and quantitative methods.
According to H. Yamada (1990, 1992), in cross-cultural business communication Japanese and Americans optimize different cultural strengths - the Japanese strength is shown in the group and the American strength in the individual. For example, "American participants take long monologic turns, distribute their turns unevenly among participants, and take the highest proportion of turns in the topics they initiate; Japanese participants take short turns, distribute their turns relatively evenly among participants, and continue to distribute their turns evenly regardless of who initiates a topic" (1990: 271). Yamada's study illustrates the difficulties arising from cross-cultural talk where meaning-in-context is created in the mutually interactive context of culture, encounter and conversation.
Jones (1990, 1992) examines how Japanese people linguistically handle conflict situations. Using audio- and video-taped conversations between friends and acquaintances, Jones identifies occasions of conflict and microanalyzes three such conversations - television debate, father-daughter conflict in a family, and office communication between co-workers. Jones (1990, 1992) reports that Japanese conflicts often occur in "ratified" situations, and when the conflict is not socially ratified, participants must work hard to rarify it.
A case in point: after a few minutes of strained conversation the co-workers in conflict abruptly stopped talking and turned away from each other. But even under this circumstance, participants strove for a playful tone, introducing laughter and jokes. Co-workers placed the conflict situation into a framework of "play" by using strategies such as style-switching, repetition, parallelism, and laughter. If the conflict is still not ratified after all reframing strategies, Jones (1990: 306) concludes that "it seems ... impossible for the participants to dispute with each other comfortably," suggesting that perhaps the Japanese themselves have bought into the "myth of harmony".
Szatrowski (1992, 1993) concentrates on the Japanese invitation and refusal interaction taken from recorded telephone conversations, and offers detailed analysis of 13 conversations of invitation. Using the concept of wadan, similar to bundan, Szatrowski shows that, instead of simple adjacency-pair, Japanese invitation-refusal negotiation is enacted by the invitation wadan stage and the response wadan stage, which may take several turn exchanges.
Szatrowski (1993) reports that when compared with the English invitation-refusal exchange, Japanese participants rely more on their co-participants in the conversation, which results in co-produced stages. For example, Szatrowski (1992, 1993) provides interaction examples in which an invitee, whose goal may be to refuse, leaves open the possibility of accepting while developing the conversation toward a refusal. A Japanese inviter will go through several "invitation stages;" he or she shows sympathy for the invitee by always leaving some option for a refusal. In the invitee's "answer stages," he or she gradually develops a story, always gauging the inviter's response, trying to convince the inviter that he or she cannot accept the invitation after all. Through this prolonged give-and-take negotiation process, both participants successfully avoid losing "face" (Goffman 1955).
The three studies mentioned above represent analysis of real-life conversation with related but differing contributions - insight into cross-cultural communication, language understood within a larger interactional frame (e.g. play), and the use of discourse units (e.g. wadan) for understanding the meaning of utterance clusters.
Hope that after reading the above discourse analysis you will have a new understanding on how Japanese discourse functions :-)
Originally posted by Bangulzai:i am not sure about this statement, but please do read this by Senko Maynard:
Language in Face-to-Face Interaction: Conversation analysis
Linguistics-oriented analysis of face-to-face interaction began with the publication of Tannen's (1984) book. Using a tape-recorded Thanksgiving dinner conversation as data, Tannen identifies "conversational style," which broadly includes linguistics expressions and interaction-managing strategies. Tannen's analytical steps are: (i) tape-recording of conversation, (ii) transcription, (iii) observation and analysis of data, (iv) hypothesis, (v) incorporation of input from conversation participants and others, and (vi) verification of hypothesis. After observing the New York Jewish style (called the machine-gun question) and analyzing how it functions in narratives, Tannen characterizes this conversation style as "high-involvement style."
Given that Tannen's study concentrates on a particular occasion of talk (a single event of conversation with multiple participants including Tannen herself), in my own work (Maynard 1986, 1987a, 1989b, 1993b) I examine multiple Japanese (and American English) conversations by using video- amd audio-taped casual conversations (20 pairs of Japanese and 20 pairs of American) among college students. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used for analysis, and both global and local levels of structure and conversation management are investigated. From the global perspective I examine thematic structure by focusing on strategies such as mode of reference and repetition which help structure the interaction-based themes of conversation. I also analyze narratives appearing in the data and show that the narrative is emergent in the conversation, and it is co-created by both story teller and story recipient. Focus is placed on interactional management strategies, turn-taking, back-channeling, and head movement. Functions and frequencies of these interactional behaviours are identified and discussed, and it is emphasized that all are significant in structuring the self-contextualization processes of Japanese interaction.
In general, conversation analysis adopts the analytical method developed by ethnomethodologists. Rather than sentences or utterances, conversation analysis considers primary the units of interaction (e.g. turns, back-channels) and their sequencing in conversation. Particularly useful are related concepts of adjacency-pair, conditional relevance, and preference organization. Interaction in conversation is locally organized as a connected pair, such as a question followed by an answer. This expected preferred sequencing of action (i.e. one example of preferene organization) creates a place in the conversational sequence where a certain response become relevant. Thus, conditional relevance means that "given the first, the second is expectable; upon its occurrence it can be seen to be a second item to the first; upon its non-occurrence it can be seen to be officially absent - all this provided sheerly by the occurrence of the first item" (Schegloff 1968: 1083). The concept of sequenced and situated action is the key for analyzing conversational interaction.
In recent years, some aspects of Japanese conversation have continued to be investigated. One of the topics often discussed (especially in Japan) is the back-channel. For example, Kita (1996) elaborates on back-channel-like utterances jointly sent by participants during the inter-turn pause. Ikeda and Ikeda (1996) offer a descriptive system in which different degrees of head nods as well as the duration of eye gaze are plotted along with the transcript, making it easier to describe both verbal and nonverbal behaviour.
Another topic in conversation analysis involves the phenomenon of co-construction. Conversation researchers have often emphasized the collaborative nature of utterance production in English (e.g. conversation as "achievement" as explained by Schegloff 1982). Following this line of inquiry, Ono and Yoshida (1996) investigate co-construction in Japanese informal conversation. It turns out that the co-construction of syntactic units is rare in Japanese, perhaps leaving the collaboration strategies to means other than syntax.Specific interaction context
Analysis of face-to-face interaction in Japanese has also led to the investigation of specific situations of talk. Three areas in particular have produced interesting results - business negotiation, conflict situation, and the invitation refusal process.
H. Yamada (1990, 1992) examines communication strategies used in Japan-US business discourse. On the basis of tape-recorded multi-party conversations of American, Japanese, and American-Japanese business meetings, Yamada contrasts topic-opening strategies, talk distribution, and back-channel strategies across these settings. Using the idea of "cross-talk," Yamada analyzes data by adopting interpretive, comparative, and quantitative methods.
According to H. Yamada (1990, 1992), in cross-cultural business communication Japanese and Americans optimize different cultural strengths - the Japanese strength is shown in the group and the American strength in the individual. For example, "American participants take long monologic turns, distribute their turns unevenly among participants, and take the highest proportion of turns in the topics they initiate; Japanese participants take short turns, distribute their turns relatively evenly among participants, and continue to distribute their turns evenly regardless of who initiates a topic" (1990: 271). Yamada's study illustrates the difficulties arising from cross-cultural talk where meaning-in-context is created in the mutually interactive context of culture, encounter and conversation.
Jones (1990, 1992) examines how Japanese people linguistically handle conflict situations. Using audio- and video-taped conversations between friends and acquaintances, Jones identifies occasions of conflict and microanalyzes three such conversations - television debate, father-daughter conflict in a family, and office communication between co-workers. Jones (1990, 1992) reports that Japanese conflicts often occur in "ratified" situations, and when the conflict is not socially ratified, participants must work hard to rarify it.
A case in point: after a few minutes of strained conversation the co-workers in conflict abruptly stopped talking and turned away from each other. But even under this circumstance, participants strove for a playful tone, introducing laughter and jokes. Co-workers placed the conflict situation into a framework of "play" by using strategies such as style-switching, repetition, parallelism, and laughter. If the conflict is still not ratified after all reframing strategies, Jones (1990: 306) concludes that "it seems ... impossible for the participants to dispute with each other comfortably," suggesting that perhaps the Japanese themselves have bought into the "myth of harmony".
Szatrowski (1992, 1993) concentrates on the Japanese invitation and refusal interaction taken from recorded telephone conversations, and offers detailed analysis of 13 conversations of invitation. Using the concept of wadan, similar to bundan, Szatrowski shows that, instead of simple adjacency-pair, Japanese invitation-refusal negotiation is enacted by the invitation wadan stage and the response wadan stage, which may take several turn exchanges.
Szatrowski (1993) reports that when compared with the English invitation-refusal exchange, Japanese participants rely more on their co-participants in the conversation, which results in co-produced stages. For example, Szatrowski (1992, 1993) provides interaction examples in which an invitee, whose goal may be to refuse, leaves open the possibility of accepting while developing the conversation toward a refusal. A Japanese inviter will go through several "invitation stages;" he or she shows sympathy for the invitee by always leaving some option for a refusal. In the invitee's "answer stages," he or she gradually develops a story, always gauging the inviter's response, trying to convince the inviter that he or she cannot accept the invitation after all. Through this prolonged give-and-take negotiation process, both participants successfully avoid losing "face" (Goffman 1955).
The three studies mentioned above represent analysis of real-life conversation with related but differing contributions - insight into cross-cultural communication, language understood within a larger interactional frame (e.g. play), and the use of discourse units (e.g. wadan) for understanding the meaning of utterance clusters.Hope that after reading the above discourse analysis you will have a new understanding on how Japanese discourse functions :-)
So what's your point?
Originally posted by dare82:So what's your point?
His point is mannerism is a very important thing in Japan.
As Jackie Chan said in the makings of one of his movie, even the Yakuza speak very politely, when he was the one asking them for help ( to act in the movie as Yakuzas).
The japs are mindful about good manners.
They even think that having oily face is no manners
if japs have good manners, then sg have no manners.
Originally posted by marcteng:if japs have good manners, then sg have no manners.
If Singaporeans have no manners, then americans....
Originally posted by marcteng:if japs have good manners, then sg have no manners.
sg got manners. You see so many foreigners come steal our jobs and yet we never do anything to them.
If its other countries they will have riots and kill all the foreigners already.
sg considered as very polite already
Originally posted by Forbiddensinner:His point is mannerism is a very important thing in Japan.
As Jackie Chan said in the makings of one of his movie, even the Yakuza speak very politely, when he was the one asking them for help ( to act in the movie as Yakuzas).
Yes probably I was too lazy to read through as I was rushing for time.
Originally posted by dare82:
Yes probably I was too lazy to read through as I was rushing for time.
me too, i read half way and rush away too, stomach churning.
i hate jap men, they take gals as second class
Originally posted by Luvraistlins:lol their culture is quite fascinating. i heard that they stared at people who talked on the train. some didn’t pick up their phone calls at all during train rides. and they usually have their handphone in silent mode.
in sg, you hear people playing music using their handphone with their loudspeakers. hmmmm.
The reason why they stared at people who talked on the train is because they find such people discourteous.
If it is an emergency or very important phone call, they will alight at the next stop first before picking it up. Only after they are done talking, then will they hop back onto the next train.
Originally posted by Forbiddensinner:The reason why they stared at people who talked on the train is because they find such people discourteous.
If it is an emergency or very important phone call, they will alight at the next stop first before picking it up. Only after they are done talking, then will they hop back onto the next train.
This shows good manners is top on their list
Originally posted by Bangulzai:i am not sure about this statement, but please do read this by Senko Maynard:
Language in Face-to-Face Interaction: Conversation analysis
Linguistics-oriented analysis of face-to-face interaction began with the publication of Tannen's (1984) book. Using a tape-recorded Thanksgiving dinner conversation as data, Tannen identifies "conversational style," which broadly includes linguistics expressions and interaction-managing strategies. Tannen's analytical steps are: (i) tape-recording of conversation, (ii) transcription, (iii) observation and analysis of data, (iv) hypothesis, (v) incorporation of input from conversation participants and others, and (vi) verification of hypothesis. After observing the New York Jewish style (called the machine-gun question) and analyzing how it functions in narratives, Tannen characterizes this conversation style as "high-involvement style."
Given that Tannen's study concentrates on a particular occasion of talk (a single event of conversation with multiple participants including Tannen herself), in my own work (Maynard 1986, 1987a, 1989b, 1993b) I examine multiple Japanese (and American English) conversations by using video- amd audio-taped casual conversations (20 pairs of Japanese and 20 pairs of American) among college students. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used for analysis, and both global and local levels of structure and conversation management are investigated. From the global perspective I examine thematic structure by focusing on strategies such as mode of reference and repetition which help structure the interaction-based themes of conversation. I also analyze narratives appearing in the data and show that the narrative is emergent in the conversation, and it is co-created by both story teller and story recipient. Focus is placed on interactional management strategies, turn-taking, back-channeling, and head movement. Functions and frequencies of these interactional behaviours are identified and discussed, and it is emphasized that all are significant in structuring the self-contextualization processes of Japanese interaction.
In general, conversation analysis adopts the analytical method developed by ethnomethodologists. Rather than sentences or utterances, conversation analysis considers primary the units of interaction (e.g. turns, back-channels) and their sequencing in conversation. Particularly useful are related concepts of adjacency-pair, conditional relevance, and preference organization. Interaction in conversation is locally organized as a connected pair, such as a question followed by an answer. This expected preferred sequencing of action (i.e. one example of preferene organization) creates a place in the conversational sequence where a certain response become relevant. Thus, conditional relevance means that "given the first, the second is expectable; upon its occurrence it can be seen to be a second item to the first; upon its non-occurrence it can be seen to be officially absent - all this provided sheerly by the occurrence of the first item" (Schegloff 1968: 1083). The concept of sequenced and situated action is the key for analyzing conversational interaction.
In recent years, some aspects of Japanese conversation have continued to be investigated. One of the topics often discussed (especially in Japan) is the back-channel. For example, Kita (1996) elaborates on back-channel-like utterances jointly sent by participants during the inter-turn pause. Ikeda and Ikeda (1996) offer a descriptive system in which different degrees of head nods as well as the duration of eye gaze are plotted along with the transcript, making it easier to describe both verbal and nonverbal behaviour.
Another topic in conversation analysis involves the phenomenon of co-construction. Conversation researchers have often emphasized the collaborative nature of utterance production in English (e.g. conversation as "achievement" as explained by Schegloff 1982). Following this line of inquiry, Ono and Yoshida (1996) investigate co-construction in Japanese informal conversation. It turns out that the co-construction of syntactic units is rare in Japanese, perhaps leaving the collaboration strategies to means other than syntax.Specific interaction context
Analysis of face-to-face interaction in Japanese has also led to the investigation of specific situations of talk. Three areas in particular have produced interesting results - business negotiation, conflict situation, and the invitation refusal process.
H. Yamada (1990, 1992) examines communication strategies used in Japan-US business discourse. On the basis of tape-recorded multi-party conversations of American, Japanese, and American-Japanese business meetings, Yamada contrasts topic-opening strategies, talk distribution, and back-channel strategies across these settings. Using the idea of "cross-talk," Yamada analyzes data by adopting interpretive, comparative, and quantitative methods.
According to H. Yamada (1990, 1992), in cross-cultural business communication Japanese and Americans optimize different cultural strengths - the Japanese strength is shown in the group and the American strength in the individual. For example, "American participants take long monologic turns, distribute their turns unevenly among participants, and take the highest proportion of turns in the topics they initiate; Japanese participants take short turns, distribute their turns relatively evenly among participants, and continue to distribute their turns evenly regardless of who initiates a topic" (1990: 271). Yamada's study illustrates the difficulties arising from cross-cultural talk where meaning-in-context is created in the mutually interactive context of culture, encounter and conversation.
Jones (1990, 1992) examines how Japanese people linguistically handle conflict situations. Using audio- and video-taped conversations between friends and acquaintances, Jones identifies occasions of conflict and microanalyzes three such conversations - television debate, father-daughter conflict in a family, and office communication between co-workers. Jones (1990, 1992) reports that Japanese conflicts often occur in "ratified" situations, and when the conflict is not socially ratified, participants must work hard to rarify it.
A case in point: after a few minutes of strained conversation the co-workers in conflict abruptly stopped talking and turned away from each other. But even under this circumstance, participants strove for a playful tone, introducing laughter and jokes. Co-workers placed the conflict situation into a framework of "play" by using strategies such as style-switching, repetition, parallelism, and laughter. If the conflict is still not ratified after all reframing strategies, Jones (1990: 306) concludes that "it seems ... impossible for the participants to dispute with each other comfortably," suggesting that perhaps the Japanese themselves have bought into the "myth of harmony".
Szatrowski (1992, 1993) concentrates on the Japanese invitation and refusal interaction taken from recorded telephone conversations, and offers detailed analysis of 13 conversations of invitation. Using the concept of wadan, similar to bundan, Szatrowski shows that, instead of simple adjacency-pair, Japanese invitation-refusal negotiation is enacted by the invitation wadan stage and the response wadan stage, which may take several turn exchanges.
Szatrowski (1993) reports that when compared with the English invitation-refusal exchange, Japanese participants rely more on their co-participants in the conversation, which results in co-produced stages. For example, Szatrowski (1992, 1993) provides interaction examples in which an invitee, whose goal may be to refuse, leaves open the possibility of accepting while developing the conversation toward a refusal. A Japanese inviter will go through several "invitation stages;" he or she shows sympathy for the invitee by always leaving some option for a refusal. In the invitee's "answer stages," he or she gradually develops a story, always gauging the inviter's response, trying to convince the inviter that he or she cannot accept the invitation after all. Through this prolonged give-and-take negotiation process, both participants successfully avoid losing "face" (Goffman 1955).
The three studies mentioned above represent analysis of real-life conversation with related but differing contributions - insight into cross-cultural communication, language understood within a larger interactional frame (e.g. play), and the use of discourse units (e.g. wadan) for understanding the meaning of utterance clusters.Hope that after reading the above discourse analysis you will have a new understanding on how Japanese discourse functions :-)
hmm..my sis used to work in JAL...told me japs is all polite and smiley i front of you..then complains whatever they dislike about you to someone else behind you..of cuz thats just one example..so some of my friends who are pretty well versed in jap culture told me the same thing..could be fake too..till i met my jap client who hit off pretty well with me..i asked him if its true japs are back stabbers..he says ya..thats y he left japan...
so while the artile is definitely not wrong..politie is a virtue..backstabbing is not..and thanks for the article..learnt quite a few things too =)
Originally posted by Suffocate:
sg got manners. You see so many foreigners come steal our jobs and yet we never do anything to them.
If its other countries they will have riots and kill all the foreigners already.
sg considered as very polite already
thats not call gd manners..thats called no balls to do anything..can only complain to fellow sg and complain in forums...and its a propaganda that brain washed sg for 40+ years to teach us be no balls..
if sg got gd manners..den i think sg no need campaigns to teach us do this and that..
Originally posted by domonkassyu:hmm..my sis used to work in JAL...told me japs is all polite and smiley i front of you..then complains whatever they dislike about you to someone else behind you..of cuz thats just one example..so some of my friends who are pretty well versed in jap culture told me the same thing..could be fake too..till i met my jap client who hit off pretty well with me..i asked him if its true japs are back stabbers..he says ya..thats y he left japan...
so while the artile is definitely not wrong..politie is a virtue..backstabbing is not..and thanks for the article..learnt quite a few things too =)
You think in the world only the japanese do that? It happens every where and any time
I think they got their retribution already. STOP hating Japan. Atcually they BRING one thing very good. The japanese soldiers fuck our asian WOMan. Mixed blood. WTF, all very pretty. Mikiyo they all. Wah lan. CHIO sia.
They also bring US troops to fuck Asian Woman. Now all mixed blood lady. VERY VERY CHIO SIA.
Anyway, SOuth african pls dun come. If not our gals all turn blacks.
Last time Japan was a sovereign state paying tributes to the Qing dynasty, it was only during the Empress Dowager Cixi period where Qing closed itself in where Japan became stronger and collaborated with the western powers.
That's why many Han Chinese still hate Japanese and Manchus.
the men are only well manner on the outside, but inside there are alots of sicko and sex manics,..poor jap gals, being use by them to perfrom sex and rape by many..Yuk...lucky i am in singapore
Originally posted by Suffocate:
sg got manners. You see so many foreigners come steal our jobs and yet we never do anything to them.
If its other countries they will have riots and kill all the foreigners already.
sg considered as very polite already
More like too scared to do anything la.. come on. lol
Polite is a nicer way to say it.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
You think in the world only the japanese do that? It happens every where and any time
i knw everywhere and anyway also have..just that its a national culture for the japs =)
the hate on jap has to stop..what was done was done..it is sad that humans can do such acts to another human..and those that suffered under the hands of japs and taiwanese have my deepest sympathy..those who transgressed will get their lot in time..
and jap got their retirbution in a way..they rape other women..now they got tons of premium Jap AV...this is nonsense anyway..but they provided lots of good quality games like final fantasy series..animes...useless invention to tickle us at their creativity and screwed up minds..
Originally posted by domonkassyu:the hate on jap has to stop..what was done was done..it is sad that humans can do such acts to another human..and those that suffered under the hands of japs and taiwanese have my deepest sympathy..those who transgressed will get their lot in time..
and jap got their retirbution in a way..they rape other women..now they got tons of premium Jap AV...this is nonsense anyway..but they provided lots of good quality games like final fantasy series..animes...useless invention to tickle us at their creativity and screwed up minds..
I second that.
They are repentent. They have been contributing innovative technology.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
I second that.They are repentent. They have been contributing innovative technology.
I would agree on the latter portion, some of their literature/comics/animes i consider even more forward thinking than the Western world and their political correctness.
But whether they're repentent....How could the Japanese be repentent for something they have no knowledge of? It seems their politicians are very eager to keep the population ignorant of their dealings in WW2.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
I second that.They are repentent. They have been contributing innovative technology.
and they do alot on green movements...they at least bother to separate their trash for easy collection for recyclers..unlike sg...all throw and burn..the heat from the incinerator can feedback to produce energy..not sure if we are doing that...or at least can use to boil some water cook maggie or milo....
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I would agree on the latter portion, some of their literature/comics/animes i consider even more forward thinking than the Western world and their political correctness.But whether they're repentent....How could the Japanese be repentent for something they have no knowledge of? It seems their politicians are very eager to keep the population ignorant of their dealings in WW2.
ironically...many japanese do know what wrong the earlier generation did..especially those that move around the world..but wats past is past..so they rather focus their energy on being productive..like saving every single cent and gift it to the US to spend and drive the world economy...
their politicians certainly do try to hide...but truth cannot be contained for long..especially in a global village and having korea and china as neighbors..