| Author |
 Topic  |
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2007 : 10:01:10 PM
|
A Twitchfilm.com story taken from Variety:
quote:
Satoru Mizushima, a veteran helmer of TV dramas and pics ("Snow Falls on the Southern Island," "Miracle Mountain"), has announced plans to make a doc correcting what he describes as the "myth" of the Nanjing Massacre. At Sundance, Fortissimo Film announced Wednesday that it had acquired rights to one of the rival docs that Mizushima is irked by. Surrounded by right-wing politicos and others backing the production, Mizushima made the announcement at a Tokyo hotel on Wednesday. Not present, but one of his supporters, is Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara.
The 1937 Nanjing Massacre, in which Japanese soldiers entering the Chinese nationalist capital killed 200,000 Chinese over an eight-week period, by some estimates, has long been a matter of dispute between China and Japan. Japanese revisionists have set the numbers of dead far lower than Chinese figures, while exonerating Japanese troops of atrocities now accepted as fact by the vast majority of Chinese. They have also sought to expunge references to the Massacre from Japanese school tests, against vigorous Chinese protests.
Mizushima is making his pic in response to "Nanking," a doc based on Iris Chang's 1997 book "The Rape of Nanking" and by produced by AOL vice chairman Ted Leonsis. Screening this year at Sundance with international rights acquired by Fortissimo Film at the fest, the doc received glowing reviews from US critics, but Mizushima claims the pic is "based on fabrications and gives a false impression" of the Japanese military's actions.
Mizushima plans to release his pic, with a distributor yet to be announced, which will feature interviews with survivors and historical footage, in December, to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the Massacre. China however, also plans its own anniversary release with a film on the Massacre, jointed produced by Gerald Green's Viridian Entertainment and the Jiangsu provincial government. Hong Kong action director Stanley Tong and London's Transworld Pictures' have also announced projects on this subject.
YIKES!
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com:
THE 2007 KICK-OFF - MAX HAVOC, UNDISPUTED 2, & BLOODFIST 2050, plus the 2006 Foybles
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 11:27:07 PM
|
Forget it, Satoru.
Iran beat you to the "[url="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/799480.html"]most disgusting abuse of history[/url]" crown.
The best you can be is a pretender to the throne.
________________________________________________________________________
"Ward, the Beaver blew up the 7-11 again."
"I'll have a talk with him Dear" |
Edited by - Capt. Nemo on 01/27/2007 11:30:00 PM |
 |
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2007 : 1:17:52 PM
|
I guess every country has its share of problems with History books.
By the way, we didn't sink the Maine.
Now seriously, Satoru's announcement seems in sync with the present-day reinforcement of Japanese nationalism. I saw some new report last week about this topic, looks like Japan feels they've spent too much being a pacifist nation and wants to return to a more patriotic, gung ho national ego.
I have no problem with that, but doing it at the expense of burying past attrocities and mistakes sounds like the worse option possible... even if most nations do it regularly. |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2007 : 7:37:36 PM
|
What makes this simultaneously pathetic and understandable is the fact that Japan may be dying:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4599071.stm
To put the number 1.28 in perspective, note that it is essential that a country's fertility rate exceed 2. If two children aren't the norm than each subsequent generation is smaller than the last. With these low numbers, Japan's population has been getting older and older and will become smaller and smaller as time goes on. The Japanese can become as nationalistic as they please but since they are turning into a nation of grey-haired old geezers arguing over events that took place 70+ years ago its not going to impact the future in any way. An ersatz nationalism is actually understandable when your nation is turning into a huge retirement community clinging to memories of the "good old days".
And let's not let China off the hook here either given the fact that it's also ruled by a bunch of geriatrics like the ones that regularly dropped dead after taking over the formerly Commie USSR. And unlike the senile barely-alive parade of ex-Soviet rulers, the Methuselahs in charge of China have actively sought to exterminate one half of the next generation at the point of a gun by enforcing a "one-child" policy.
This whole controversy is going to end with the proverbial whimper when the last nationalist kicks the bucket after turning out the lights. |
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2007 : 9:23:29 PM
|
I think that countries with low birth rates should be applauded. In addition, this notion that the Japanese are going to somehow "die out" is pretty silly.
China's one-child policy, while hamfisted in many respects, has had the effect of lowering the population of the country by, I read, 300,000,000 people. That's 300 million people that aren't further strangling the overpopulated country.
This world cannot long maintain the Ponzi population scheme whereby
we expect the next generation to increase so that it can support the last generation in retirement. We've strolled too long down that path and may someday reap the wind because of it when the reality takes hold that dictates that the Western lifestyle cannot be tranlated worldwide without resource exhaustion.
We're drowning in people. It's time to realize that and peacefully lower the population lest nature cull the herd in a far less pleasant manner. If the UN does anything right, its advancement of birth control in third world nations stands just might be it.
Pip
"These five fingers: individually they're nothing, but when I curl them together like this into a single unit, they form a weapon that is terrible to behold!" - Lucy Van Pelt |
|
|
|
New Hinda
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Israel
469 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 08:27:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pip
China's one-child policy, while hamfisted in many respects, has had the effect of lowering the population of the country by, I read, 300,000,000 people.
This world cannot long maintain the Ponzi population scheme whereby
we expect the next generation to increase so that it can support the last generation in retirement.
We're drowning in people.
Pip
You call murdering babies "hamfisted?" The "Ponzi population scheme," of having people support their aged parents, has worked for centuries. We are not "drowning in people." Parts of rural Germany, for example, are so underpopulated that certain wild animals, not seen for centuries, are making a comeback. |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 09:57:40 AM
|
Also, the inability of people to get along is a major cause of suffering. If a nation has good land for cultivation, but the methods are inapproperiate, and the goverment and people are at each others throats, then its good by prosperity.
I mean...just look at Africa...
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KDOT
|
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 10:26:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by New Hinda
You call murdering babies "hamfisted?" The "Ponzi population scheme," of having people support their aged parents, has worked for centuries. We are not "drowning in people." Parts of rural Germany, for example, are so underpopulated that certain wild animals, not seen for centuries, are making a comeback.
[/quote]
(Eva is bemused at the holier-than-thou family-centric attitude.)
Let's deconstruct those four sentences, shall we?
(1) Sadly, murdering babies - mainly girls - has been going on for some time in China due to their horrible cultural preference for boys.
(Tradition says that boys marry and the young couple moves in with the parants of the boy. The parents of the girl get no such support.) Was reading Tuchman's book Stilwell and the American Experience in China last night; she described a scene where the body of a baby girlwas left out for the dogs.)
If I could wave my magic wand and make people respect the life we have, plan carefully before they brought babies into the world, and adopt their cultural mores such that no gender, religion or race was favored, I would. Until then, on it goes.
Or, as my step-bro Dalton puts it: There'd be a lot less death in this world if there were a lot less life to begin with.
(2) By "Ponzi Population Scheme" I meant schemes like Social(ist) Security here in the States whereby one generation is forced to pay money into a government pyramid scheme to fund the preceeding generation, not children taking care of their own parents. The latter is noble, the former is bunk.
Basically, you end up paying for other people's welfare and are left hoping that someone will pay for yours. And it gets even better: you pretty much get a standard amount. Whether you put in $X,$X-1 or $X+1, you get X in return. For those of us who busted our butt to make a good salary, we lose out. Then we're told we're selfish when we call them on it. Phooey to that! How would you like it if you went to the bank, put in $1K, watched as another patron put in $100, and then were both handed $550 when you took your money out.
I can take of myself, thank you. And my present self can take of my future self better than any government ever could.
(3) We are drowning in people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
When does it stop?
I suppose if you want to live in a shoebox apartment with a bunch of other people and eat soybean pellets, it would rock.
Who respects life more? Those who would have the population lowered through peaceful attrition or those who would drive the herd past what the earth can take and lead us to a calamitous dropoff?
(4) So what? Good. As hard as it is for me to admit that the Europeans are doing something better then us 'Murkins, their lowering of the population is a lesson that we and *especially* the third world could take to heart. Here in the states, EVERY SINGLE STATE gained population in the last census. Our parks are overrun. Our public lands, on which I work part of the year, are violated by teeming throngs. Our cities sprawl.
Pip
"These five fingers: individually they're nothing, but when I curl them together like this into a single unit, they form a weapon that is terrible to behold!" - Lucy Van Pelt |
Edited by - Pip on 01/29/2007 5:39:19 PM |
|
|
|
twitterpate
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
1026 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 11:27:30 AM
|
Pip, the problem is that, like inflation/deflation, both swelling populations and rapidly decreasing populations have serious downsides. You're just trading one set of problems for another. The easiest solution would be either stable populations, or, in areas seriously overpopulated, a slow decrease. However, it's hard for governments to have that much control over their citizen's reproductive habits.
Why is North America having an expanding population? It's not from all the babies born here; it's immigration. If I recall the figures correctly, if Canada closed the borders and kept its current birthrate, the country would be empty with 3 - 4 centuries.
Japan is a traditionally insular country, without a lot of immigration. A birthrate that's basically half the replacement rate, without balancing immigration, is definitely something that will lead to serious social problems; they are just different problems that a birthrate of, say 4.5 would lead to. |
|
|
|
Max Torque
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
61 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 4:51:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pip
(1) Sadly, murdering babies - mainly girls - has been going on for some time in China due to their horrible cultural preference for boys.
(Tradition says that boys marry and the young couple moves in with the parants of the boy. The parents of the girl get no such support.) Was reading Tuchman's book Stilwell and the American Experience in China last night; he described a scene where the body of a baby was left out for the dogs.)
The overwhelming social preference for boys in China has led to other consequences no one intended. Right now, there's a serious gender imbalance. As boys are kept and girls abandoned, the imbalance will increase. It is estimated that by the year 2020, there will be 30 million Chinese men of marriageable age who will be absolutely unable to find a wife, because there will be no one for them to pair up with. At the very least, this will lead to an increase in prostitution, rape, kidnappings, and gang violence.
My guess is, China will have to find itself a war, just to give all the restless men something to keep them busy. I suppose, in that way, the one-child policy will have the effect of lowering the populations of other countries, as well. |
|
|
|
stevemb
Altar Boy of Jabootu
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 6:04:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by New Hinda
The "Ponzi population scheme," of having people support their aged parents, has worked for centuries.
No, it hasn't. For almost all of history, a rather small percentage of the population ever got to be "aged". Modern times are very much a demographic anomaly, and things are slowly adjusting to a new equilibrium.
|
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 9:06:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pip
(3) We are drowning in people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
When does it stop?
I suppose if you want to live in a shoebox apartment with a bunch of other people and eat soybean pellets, it would rock.
Pip,
In all respect I must totally disagree with this, and it pains me to do so given the fact that you and I truly share the same opinion about government-run Ponzi schemes.
All we need to do is employ some simple arithmetic. Putting my money where my mouth is consider the area of the United States - approximately 3.7 million square miles. I culled a current number of 6.7 billion as the current world population from an alarmist website, so I think that this is actually an upper limit. Move every person in the world to the United States and give them (3.7 million/6.7 billion) square miles or, using the fact that 1 sq. mile equals 640 acres, ultimately .35 acres for themselves. I am the proud owner of a middle class house in the South County suburb of St. Louis and I own only .22 acres for myself, my beautiful wife, daughter and Golden Retriever and the foul-smelling vicious little weasel-like animal that my wife refers to as a "cat". And I should note that much – if not a majority - of that .22 acres requires mowing on my part, so all that space is a bit of a mixed blessing.
Now you can argue as you will about this experiment in terms of portions of the U.S. being uninhabitable, the need for roads and places of work, etc. but at this point note that we have all of both Mexico and Canada to encroach on not to mention the entirely unoccupied continents of South America, Asia, Europe and Australia. And dare I conjecture that most will adopt my lifestyle and actually live with their spouses and children, easily halving the necessary space.
Given these arithmetical truths, there is just no way that the world can be considered overpopulated. The whole notion should have been laughed out of the public square 30 years ago in the wake of the most ridiculously wrong prediction in recorded history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
The fact of the matter is that pointing to “overpopulation” as a problem is simply a way to divert attention from the real problems of poverty caused by dysfunctional, tyrannical and repressive government regimes.
quote:
Originally posted by twitterpate
Why is North America having an expanding population? It's not from all the babies born here; it's immigration. If I recall the figures correctly, if Canada closed the borders and kept its current birthrate, the country would be empty with 3 - 4 centuries.
TP,
Just a small quibble here because waves of immigration have undoubtedly caused some big population increases in North America. The United States does, however, also seem to keep its end up in terms of reproduction as its fertility rate is very near 2 babies per woman. How badly this figure is scrambled by immigration I don’t know, but many pockets of non-immigrants in the U.S. have been identified as having a fertility rate exceeding 2. To take an example, Mormons are fond of big families and states with high concentrations of same have high fertility rates.
You are right, however, that Canada has willingly joined the European death spiral with a fertility rate less than two. I present this link with a caveat – it is sponsored by pro-lifers – but these are just statistics and they match with the numbers I’ve seen elsewhere. We can confirm with other sources if the need arises:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Max Torque
The overwhelming social preference for boys in China has led to other consequences no one intended. Right now, there's a serious gender imbalance. As boys are kept and girls abandoned, the imbalance will increase. It is estimated that by the year 2020, there will be 30 million Chinese men of marriageable age who will be absolutely unable to find a wife, because there will be no one for them to pair up with. At the very least, this will lead to an increase in prostitution, rape, kidnappings, and gang violence.
MT,
I wish I were as able to say this as well myself. The “one-child” policy is one of the sicker experiments ever conducted in human history and the results of it will be horrible to behold. Denying tens of millions of young men the chance at a home and family of their own is fatal to social stability, especially when the issues of class start to enter into the equation. Somehow, I think that the filthy rich little sliver of pampered Politburo princes and insiders isn’t going to find it as difficult to settle down with mates as will the larger mass of Chinese men.
At this point, the best that the rest of the world can hope for is that the coming collapse is largely an internal one and that your prediction of it spilling out into open warfare doesn’t come true. |
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 10:04:15 PM
|
Now you've done it! Now I'm getting redhead on you! :-)
All we need to do is employ some simple arithmetic. Putting my money where my mouth is consider the area of the United States - approximately 3.7 million square miles. I culled a current number of 6.7 billion as the current world population from an alarmist website, so I think that this is actually an upper limit. Move every person in the world to the United States and give them (3.7 million/6.7 billion) square miles or, using the fact that 1 sq. mile equals 640 acres, ultimately .35 acres for themselves.
Now you can argue as you will about this experiment in terms of portions of the U.S. being uninhabitable,
large portions, huge portions
the need for roads and places of work, etc.
"etc." including mines to provide minerals, farms and ranches to provide food, parks to enjoy, government buildings, schools, churches, factories, reserviors, lakes, rivers, airports, dumps, utilities, warehouses, military bases, the galaxy of commercial places people desire...it goes on and on.
but at this point note that we have all of both Mexico and Canada
How much of Canada is habitable? How much of Canada would anybody want to inhabit? (No offense to Canadians, but Baffin Island isn't exactly a garden spot.)
to encroach on not to mention the entirely unoccupied continents of South America, Asia, Europe and Australia. And dare I conjecture that most will adopt my lifestyle and actually live with their spouses and children, easily halving the necessary space.
And others would want a lot more than .35 acres. Like ten, twenty, a hundred times more. See, the problem with thought experiments like yours is that, while it sounds good when talking on a board, it has no meaning in real life. Consider Brazil. From what I've heard, the land is owned by about 700 families who have been in power for centuries. Not part of that thin upper crust? Well, you can crowd in here. Consider Texas. The land grants of the late 1800s placed leagues and leagues of land into the hands of a small number of people.
Given these arithmetical truths, there is just no way that the world can be considered overpopulated.
I disagree. And remember, the people who are sitting on those .35 acres will consume. As more and more people adopt the Western lifestyle, the consumption skyrockets. And everything that comes freighted with - burning fossil fuels, pollution, etc.
The fact of the matter is that pointing to “overpopulation” as a problem is simply a way to divert attention from the real problems of poverty caused by dysfunctional, tyrannical and repressive government regimes.
Problems that will likely not be eliminated in the future as human behavior is timeless and problems that are made worse by crowding too many people into a portion of earth not meant to hold them.
In addition, your experiment suggests some kind of redistribution of resources and relocation. Human history is littered with awful attempts at that. Ask the Armenians, Cherokees or Kulaks about it. I'm not suggesting we drop back below 1 billion or so, but what will the Earth look like when 10 billion people are chugging away with all the stuff that comes with the Western lifestyle? I hope it turns out as rosy as you seem to suggest. I fear it won't.
Pip
"These five fingers: individually they're nothing, but when I curl them together like this into a single unit, they form a weapon that is terrible to behold!" - Lucy Van Pelt |
|
|
|
New Hinda
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Israel
469 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 04:56:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pip
(1) Sadly, murdering babies - mainly girls - has been going on for some time in China due to their horrible cultural preference for boys.
Who respects life more? Those who would have the population lowered through peaceful attrition or those who would drive the herd past what the earth can take and lead us to a calamitous dropoff?
Our public lands, on which I work part of the year, are violated by teeming throngs. Our cities sprawl.
[/quote]
The Chinese not only have a tradition of murdering girls; they have a tradition of mudering cerebral palsy cases. That doesn't make their "one child policy" right. Who says the herd is going to be driven past what the earth can take? With the biotech revolution, pretty soon we'll be able to farm all that empty land in Russia and Canada. How can our "public lands" be violated by "teeming throngs" when they're tax payers and its public land? Their land? We'd have more land to build on and farm on-by the way, do you know how much of a food surplus the United States has?-if it wern't for open-space laws. Why shouldn't our cities sprawl? |
|
|
|
New Hinda
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Israel
469 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 05:00:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Max Torque
My guess is, China will have to find itself a war, just to give all the restless men something to keep them busy.
A purge would be more like it. It will be cheaper to shoot most of them and put the rest in labor camps. |
|
|
|
Max Torque
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
61 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 08:45:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by R. Dittmar
MT,
I wish I were as able to say this as well myself. The “one-child” policy is one of the sicker experiments ever conducted in human history and the results of it will be horrible to behold. Denying tens of millions of young men the chance at a home and family of their own is fatal to social stability, especially when the issues of class start to enter into the equation. Somehow, I think that the filthy rich little sliver of pampered Politburo princes and insiders isn’t going to find it as difficult to settle down with mates as will the larger mass of Chinese men.
Which reminds me of another issue the Chinese are struggling to deal with that has resulted from the one-child policy: Chinese families, which used to be quite large, now have only one child to lavish all their attention and money upon. As a result, the youngest generation in China is getting fat and spoiled. Childhood obesity is skyrocketing, along with the resultant health problems. So, not only do they have a generation without spouses, they have a generation of "little emperors" used to getting everything they want, who will find when they grow up that they can't get married. Talk about a recipe for disaster. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked