free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

abhatia · Joined: 26 Jan 2011 Posts: 37

What effect does naming a historical movement as the 'Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere' or a historical event as 'the China Incident'?

Free Forum

JasonJeong · Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 13

Naming carries significant values in historical context. Distorting names of historical events like the Sino-Japanese War into "The China Incident" depreciates the weight of the War. I mean, if we were to tell a 10 year old that Japan was involved in the "China Incident," no kid will think of it as a war , which cost hundreds of thousands of casualties. Same way, naming is also extremely significant in terms of geography. There are many countries in the world who are having struggles over names of a geographic region. For example, naming of the Sea of Japan, which is located between Korea and Japan is a sensitive issue to touch for Koreans and Japanese. For Koreans, the sea was called the East Sea for millennia, but for Japan, Sea of Japan is the name, which they suggested to the international community (and was approved).

theshaver · Joined: 15 Feb 2012 Posts: 5

I think that a name, especially in these examples, can show a lot about the people who chose the name. "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", the term coined during WWII, exposes the Japanese government's desire for ultimate control of the East while framing it in a positive light with it's title. The same sugar coating of brutalities behind in the title "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity fear" is present, if not more so, in the name "The China Incident." By calling the event an "incident" the Japanese government is able to push away responsibility and make it seem as though it was something inevitable that befell the nation of Japan rather than something with which they were responsible.

shawks · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 13

There's a reason why the average Japanese person was so surprised to hear that the country was at war with America. Because the government wasn't clear about what it wanted. It never ordered the troops to bomb Pearl Harbor. They just did it anyway because the instructions were ambiguous.
Whenever anything is told in an ambiguous way, people tend to interpret it in the way that best suits them. When Japanese hear about the China Incident, they believe that Japan is gaining yet another victory. They would rather not think that things could be much more complicated than just a simple sentence on the time line. I know that I sometimes think most about the events that have the most interesting names, like Bleeding Kansas and the Boston Massacre. Humans usually like to simplify complex ideas, so they don't have to spend as much time thinking.

mkim2013 · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 9

I agree with the point Jason made. The name of a war exists just like every people have their names. It can be looked as a part of identification. Like what Jason said, even in one war, there are many battles and conflicts that are both significant and insignificant. For example, China Incident or Manchuria Incident, just by examining its name, we can easilty figure out that it is war that happened in Manchuria or in China. Moreover, just by looking at the names of two greatest wars, World War 1 and World War 2, we easily know its significance. Again, naming wars or historical movements, we are giving the event identitity that people use it to refer or recognize.

lizzieyang · Joined: 26 Jan 2011 Posts: 14

The name, "the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" comes solely from Japanese perspective. This particular title only shows Japanese's desire, at the time, to "enlighten" Asian nations with the lead of Japan. I strongly doubt that Koreans and Chinese would happily approve this concept. Obviously, at the time, peoples of both countries physically and mentally suffered under Japanese tortures against them. I do agree with Jason(above) with many controversies in naming particular regions in the world. At the very example Jason brought up, the two names of the ocean in between Korea and Japan, not only deals with the title of the sea itself, but also deals with the two islands those are present. The smaller island of the two, which is also the further one from Korea, has been the property of Korea for the longest time. However, just by naming the ocean "the Sea of Japan" Japan keeps blatantly claiming the island as theirs. Another heart-breaking truth Koreans are experiencing with Japan deals with "the title" as well. Empress MyeongSeong was assassinated by Japanese because she came from a powerful family that strongly supported the independence of Korea from Japan. Referring to her as "Empress" is historically correct and it is an honorable title that not all wives of Kings receive in Korea. Before she was given such title, she was called "Queen Min." However, Japanese still refer her as "Queen Min" as if they are trying to lighten the weight of their crime because it would seem like they did not kill someone of the highest authority. Although, in fact, Empress MyeongSeong is considered one of the greatest empresses/queens there were in Korean history.

lizzieyang · Joined: 26 Jan 2011 Posts: 14

We can also see how important the naming of the historical events is by the fact that Japan is still debating on what to name the last war they had, which is WWII. Apparently, more than 60 years have past since the war ended but Japan is still trying to figure out its role back then. To know more about it, go to this link and read this article!
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/02/17/japan-wages-war-over-what-to-name-the-last-one/

wlotas2013 · Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Posts: 20

Language is a weapon. In modern society we have corporate executives using words with deceitful intentions. Countless amounts of speeches, statements, documents etc are littered with complex vocabulary meant to overwhelm the reader/listener/viewer. Without the populace's having a concrete understanding of government actions, the government are free to what they wish. Using terms such as "Co-prosperity" or "incident" distort the truth. It's a formal method of "sugarcoating". Instead of saying the brutal, uncalled massacre of the Chinese, it's called an "Incident". The Rape of Nanking was a perfect name for what happened. It spares no detail.

squashie · Joined: 07 Sep 2011 Posts: 22

A name is everything! It helps define the purpose of your cause and what you're willing to sacrifice for it. Depending on the ideals that this name comes with, it helps to gain or lose followers and supporters for your cause. With Japan, the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" movement indicated what Japan sought out from the East Asian countries and helped seek support from them. Names also have a inquisitive characteristic about them if they are very vague, like the "China Incident".

In terms of the effect the name gives can be very powerful or very destructive. These examples have been seen in both America with the "Civil Rights Movement" and in Germany with the "Rise of Anti-Semitism".

Yqi2013 · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 21

A single historical event can have several different names with respect to different perspectives. The names can be used as propaganda tools too. 'Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere' seems to be a positive thing that the Japanese desired for. The government planted the concept that Japan was the leader of the 'co-prosperity' of East Asia into people's minds by using this phrase over and over. People's view on an event could be changed unconsciously. They tend to believe in things that they hear the most times, thus the government could manage to receive people's support. 'The China Incident' is commonly know as 'July 7th Incident' or 'Lugou Bridge Incident' in China. One could see that Japan emphasizes 'China', the big country that they invaded, while China stresses the date and the exact location. People in China would then have a clear idea on when exactly Japan started a series of invasions. To me it's funny how 'Lugou Bridge' equals to 'Marco Polo Bridge'. They seem totally disconnected. In that case, choices of name demonstrate people's preference of their own cultures over others'.

Vsylva2012 · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 6

Naming events in history hold unimaginable significance. In our society and throughout history, people have been drawn to labeling, naming, and categorizing to order situations in every day life. We have been naming things for our convenience for so long that we have come to EXPECT things to have a name of which we can base a quick judgment off of. Although this CAN create problems, for the most part it is helpful to us. For example, if you are driving along a road looking for a HEALTHY burger place, you'll obviously choose the place named "Greenburger" over "Greasy-Joe's" simply because you base your immediate initial feelings of that place (if it is healthy or not) based on its name. Same goes for if you are a trucker in the mood for a juicy, sloppy, comfort-food type burger, and you choose "Greasy-Joes".
So how this relates to history is that if one names a prominent event "The China Incident" rather than "That Time We Massacred China" people's feelings towards said event will be in much "lighter heart" than if it were called the latter. It is in a country's best interest to name their mistakes wisely as to keep up good public relations.

Free Forum