China Distorts History Ahead of World War II Commemoration

[FairAndUnbiased]

Totally incorrect.

Guilt is expressed in the following Kanji: 有罪, or ゆうざい "Yu Zai"



The word is Objective. Japanese are Objective.

The word for guilt should be 愧疚.

罪 means crime in original Chinese. What makes a crime, a crime, is 1.) being judged by other people, rather than objective laws of morality and 2.) being caught. Not being caught means not a crime, and others not thinking its a crime means its not a crime.

 

[JSCh]

Why make a big fuss about a film??

It is a film, for heaven sake, it is not a documentary.

The director has the right to portray or give weight to anyone he deem fit to tell his story. If he had decided to tell the story from the CCP/PRC perspective, then he is entitled.

That is NOT distortion of history !!

He could even allowed himself some freedom to apply artistic license. If he veer too much from historical facts, then his film would not be taken seriously.

And so far there is ZERO evidence that "Cairo Declaration" did that.

 

[kankan326]

And then on 14th Aug 2015, the film released a further 4 more posters.

That 4 posters feature by themselves 4 characters in the film.

Mao, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

This caused a big stir in the web, with first accusation at the film, and then Chinese gov't. Some even went as far as against China and Chinese people.

All this, because the film released a poster that feature Mao by himself.

And that is considered "distortion of history"? Mao is a historical figure that lived and did carry some weight during that period in history.

And if you had taken all 8 posters released in consideration, you would have come to the conclusion that there is clearly no attempt or act of "distortion of history".

《开罗宣言》曝光人物海报?四位伟人铸就历史--人民网娱乐频道--人民网

(notice the differences in background of posters)

毛泽东

邱吉尔

罗斯福

斯大林

Don't worry， all the non-Chinese, we know it was KMT who represented China to attend Cairo Meeting. I mean we knew it for long. CCP didn't lie on this.

 

[Jlaw]

You do know that the skirmish continued till 1989, right? And how come suddenly this relates to VN. Try to defend your own distortion first.

When the border was settled with Vietnam in 1990ish, Vietnam gave some territory to China though not reported by Vietnamese government. You can try to uncover that.

Why make a big fuss about a film??

It is a film, for heaven sake, it is not a documentary.

The director has the right to portray or give weight to anyone he deem fit to tell his story. If he had decided to tell the story from the CCP/PRC perspective, then he is entitled.

That is NOT distortion of history !!

He could even allowed himself some freedom to apply artistic license. If he veer too much from historical facts, then his film would not be taken seriously.

And so far there is ZERO evidence that "Cairo Declaration" did that.

American film is good with distortion of reality. How about films like:

300 - Google Search


http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/2589/p2589_p_v7_aa.jpg

Never knew Ghenghis Khan was white lol

11 Movies Saved by Historical Inaccuracy | Cracked.com

History and Subjectivity: What We Won't Learn from the Hollywood-Style Vietnam War Film, Part I, Michael Selig

 

[William Hung]

minor correction. Japan has a word for shame, but no word for guilt. Shame in Japanese culture means "I am shamed of being caught", not "I am ashamed for having done this". The second one is guilt, which doesn't exist in Japan.

Question:

In Vietnamese, we have no indigenous word for “evil”. Our word for evil “ác” is borrowed from the hanzi 惡. So does that mean, following your reasoning, my Vietnamese ancestors has no concept or idea of evil until they have interacted with han Chinese people and learn evil 惡 from the Chinese culture?

If you say that us Vietnamese do have the concept of “evil” before we can express it in a linguistic form, then doesn’t that mean people who do not have an indigenous linguistic expression of “guilt” can still possess and practice the concept of guilt?

Unless, you are going to say that “evil” is a Chinese specialty and us Vietnamese learnt it (and practice it) from your han Chinese ancestors?

 

[xesy]

When the border was settled with Vietnam in 1990ish, Vietnam gave some territory to China though not reported by Vietnamese government. You can try to uncover that.

Those area was lost due to a series of skirmishes after 1979, not the direct result of the 1979 war. That's what I meant to say.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Question:

In Vietnamese, we have no indigenous word for “evil”. Our word for evil “ác” is borrowed from the hanzi 惡. So does that mean, following your reasoning, my Vietnamese ancestors has no concept or idea of evil until they have interacted with han Chinese people and learn evil 惡 from the Chinese culture?

If you say that us Vietnamese do have the concept of “evil” before we can express it in a linguistic form, then doesn’t that mean people who do not have an indigenous linguistic expression of “guilt” can still possess and practice the concept of guilt?

Unless, you are going to say that “evil” is a Chinese specialty and us Vietnamese learnt it (and practice it) from your han Chinese ancestors?

Japan copied the wrong word, so they only had a superficial understanding of the word 罪 and showing that they do not understand the concept of 愧疚, which can also be formed into other words such as 羞愧, 内疚, etc. Vietnamese copied the correct word which shows that you do have understanding of this concept.

 

[Aepsilons]

Unless, you are going to say that “evil” is a Chinese specialty and us Vietnamese learnt it (and practice it) from your han Chinese ancestors?

classy.

Japan copied the wrong word, so they only had a superficial understanding of the word 罪 and showing that they do not understand the concept of 愧疚, which can also be formed into other words such as 羞愧, 内疚, etc. Vietnamese copied the correct word which shows that you do have understanding of this concept.

Nope.

 

[rcrmj]

classy.



Nope.

yes he is right, Japanese culture is basically a copy of Han culture, especially the characters, there are lots Chinese who can speak Japanese know it very well, a beginner can almost read Japanese newspaper with ease

 

[Aepsilons]

yes he is right, Japanese culture is basically a copy of Han culture, especially the characters, there are lots Chinese who can speak Japanese know it very well, a beginner can almost read Japanese newspaper with ease

I'm afraid its the other way around. Japanese can understand Chinese Hanzi, however, the Chinese understanding of Japanese is limited only to Kanji, and limited in scope since Chinese do not understand Katakana and Hiragana + Romanji (unless the Chinese is educated in Japanese language).

Japanese Kanji is largely traditional Hanzi characters; mainlanders know only simplified, not Traditional. So one can even argue that Japanese Kanji is more of a preservation of the original.

As for copy of Han culture? Yes, we borrowed some aspects of the Tang Dynasty, but it was merged to the greater Yamato Imperial Culture. The better word would be 'Fusion'.


Regards.

 

[JSCh]

Question:

In Vietnamese, we have no indigenous word for “evil”. Our word for evil “ác” is borrowed from the hanzi 惡. So does that mean, following your reasoning, my Vietnamese ancestors has no concept or idea of evil until they have interacted with han Chinese people and learn evil 惡 from the Chinese culture?

If you say that us Vietnamese do have the concept of “evil” before we can express it in a linguistic form, then doesn’t that mean people who do not have an indigenous linguistic expression of “guilt” can still possess and practice the concept of guilt?

Unless, you are going to say that “evil” is a Chinese specialty and us Vietnamese learnt it (and practice it) from your han Chinese ancestors?

Chinese do not have equivalent concept of evil as in the west. I am referring to evil as meaning inherently bad without possibility of redemption(惡 mean bad, not evil in this sense). That is against Chinese concept of everything being a mixture of Yin and Yang.

Are you saying that there is no word meaning badness in Vietnamese before 惡?

 

[Aepsilons]

Don't worry， all the non-Chinese, we know it was KMT who represented China to attend Cairo Meeting. I mean we knew it for long. CCP didn't lie on this.

lol, of course Mao wasn't invited to the Cairo Meeting.

Mao was largely insignificant at the time. Jiang Jieshi, on the other hand, was considered the "Generalissimo" of China.

lol.

 

[rcrmj]

I'm afraid its the other way around. Japanese can understand Chinese Hanzi, however, the Chinese understanding of Japanese is limited only to Kanji, and limited in scope since Chinese do not understand Katakana and Hiragana + Romanji (unless the Chinese is educated in Japanese language).

Japanese Kanji is largely traditional Hanzi characters; mainlanders know only simplified, not Traditional. So one can even argue that Japanese Kanji is more of a preservation of the original.

As for copy of Han culture? Yes, we borrowed some aspects of the Tang Dynasty, but it was merged to the greater Yamato Imperial Culture. The better word would be 'Fusion'.


Regards.

kid, we are talking about meaning of a character, not the way of writing, and do you even have the slightly idea of the difference between simplified and traditional writings ?````:lol; the meaning of the characters never changed since ancient times, the simplified characters have only lessened strokes than the traditional ones, and thats it``omg, so ignorant

 

[Aepsilons]

kid, we are talking about meaning of a character, not the way of writing, and do you even have the slightly idea of the difference between simplified and traditional writings ?````:lol; the meaning of the characters never changed since ancient times, the simplified characters have only lessened strokes than the traditional ones, and thats it``omg, so ignorant

Simplified character is not Traditional character. Its not just about strokes, significant changes in the form also is present.

• 聽　－　听
  
• 豐　－　丰
  
• 議　－　议

Traditional (left) ; Simplified (right)

Its easier for folks who master Traditional to learn the simplified form; than for folks who know only simplified and try to master Traditional.

In other words Simplified is a dumb down version of Traditional. Lazy form, so to say.

 

[William Hung]

Chinese do not have equivalent concept of evil as in the west. I am referring to evil as meaning inherently bad without possibility of redemption(惡 mean bad, not evil in this sense). That is against Chinese concept of everything being a mixture of Yin and Yang.

Are you saying that there is no word meaning badness in Vietnamese before 惡?

No, we don’t care about the concept of redemption when we say “evil”
惡. And I don’t think many western people cared about the notion of redemption either when they talk about “evil”, unless they are religious or have some life philosophy. So I’m not sure why you would mention the concept of redemption here. Some of us believe in that, some don’t, its not an essential concept for our word ac (惡) or evil.

For us Vietnamese, we use evil ac
惡 to differentiate it from “bad” in terms of degree and intensity. Meaning,
惡 or ac convey a much more deeper and darker notion of badness. I think its also similar in English.

A little kid stealing candies from a store would be considered as “bad” and we do have indigenous words for that like khong tot or sau. But we can’t describe that as ac 惡 because
惡 is only reserved for something extremely bad like murder and torture, just like the word “evil” will be used in English. And in Vietnamese, we do not have the indigenous equivalent word for this extreme badness or “evil”.

So my question remain, according to your friend’s reasoning, does it mean that my Vietnamese ancestors did not know any concept of extreme evil until we have met your han Chinese ancestor and learnt it from them?