Talk:The Comfort Women

The Comfort Women, the book by Soh

(This discussion was moved here from User talk:Binksternet after it became plain that the concerns were larger than just behavioral. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

I read the essay "The Korean 'Comfort Women': Movement for Redress" a few years ago, and it didn't refer to "The comfort women program was greatly expanded in 1937 after the rape of Nanjing demonstrated the sexual violence which Japanese forces were capable of. The idea was that the Japanese soldiers would be provided with sanctioned sex to prevent the indiscriminate rape of women in conquered territory." If you are claiming this is part of the essay, perhaps you can printscreen that part and present it as a reference. If you added it on your own or if you can't present any reference, it should be taken out.

Also regarding what you added, "The comfort women question arose in the 1990s, and was not on the table during 1952–1965 when Japan and Korea were establishing bilateral relations. After public testimony and lawsuits in 1991–1992, the government of Japan officially apologized for the comfort women program in early 1992. However, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party was unwilling to indicate any legal responsibility for redress. In 1994, the Social Democratic Party came to power in Japan, and was able to establish the Asian Women's Fund, which Soh described as "an amalgam of private and government money", operated by the government. The AWF paid a number of comfort women, but its actions were opposed by conservatives who thought it was too much, and also by liberal feminists who thought it was too little."

Have you read "Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea?" http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2005/01/17/SKorea-discloses-sensitive-documents/UPI-38131105952315/ "Sensitive documents about an agreement with Japan, which South Korea declassified Monday, may expose the government to lawsuits from South Korean war victims. The 1,200 pages of documents show that South Korea agreed never to make further compensation demands, either at the government or individual level, after receiving $800 million in grants and soft loans from Japan as compensation for its 1910-1945 colonial rule."

Liberal Democratic Party was unwilling to indicate any legal responsibility on Korean comfort women because that would have breached the treaty of 1965, which finalized all claims, governmetal and personal.　The fact that the activists started the comfort women issue in the 1990s was not Japan's problem.

What I'm trying to say is that you are adding too much background. This article is about the book, not essay or paper. Please trim down the background so that the readers can focus on what this book says.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "Summary" section, I believe that you have selected the themes you wish to highlight, without making a balanced summary of the book. If your summary was modified to be balanced I would consider trimming the "Background" section. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You read Temple University Japan's Professor Jeff Kingston's article in The Japan Times, right? He is a well known Japan basher. And my summary is very similar to his article. Balanced summary in your opinion would not reflect this book. I suggest you read the book first to determine what is the proper balance. As for Nanking, could you please provide the printscreen of the page that mentions it? Thanks as always.　--D.H.Lee (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I tell you what. I let you keep "Nanking" although the essay doesn't refer to it and let you remove "by the Korean operators" & "Korean traffickers." I know you want to insinuate that Korean women were coerced by the Japanese. That's fine. I want 2000 paper removed from "Background" i.e. basically returning to the way it was yesterday. At the end of essay, I still want "Soh considered the actions of the KCWS to be successful initially, achieving the establishment of a United Nations investigation committee and the admission of guilt by Japan. However, she became critical of KCWS in the late 1990s when KCWS refused to accept Japan's apology and compensation via Asian Women's Fund, which prevented reconciliation between Japan and South Korea" instead of your wording because that is more precise and clear. I took the liberty of making those changes. Let me know how you feel. Thanks. --D.H.Lee (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The 1996 essay says that the comfort women program was greatly expanded after the rape of Nanking. Soh writes:

Japan began drafting Korean women in full force from around 1937 when its army invaded China and the soldiers raped and murdered tens of thousands of Chinese women in Nanjing.

You have removed important information with this edit, removing Soh's development of the topic in 2000 and 2001. This is not helpful at all. You also removed the very relevant summary of Soh's 1996 work, the one saying that Soh "wrote that the issue of monetary compensation for the surviving comfort women was a divisive one, preventing smooth political relations between Japan and South Korea." That summary is supported by the 1996 essay, which says the following:

The public debate on the issue in Korea and Japan has been discordant and shifting since Kim Hak-sun's public testimony in 1991... In contrast to the adversarial nationalistic undertone in the discussions between the governments, feminist activists and member of nongovernmental organizations in South Korea were able to forge an international coalition... For Japan, the issue of "military comfort women" turned into an unexpected political embarrassment, damaging its national "face" in the international community. Tokyo tried to exercise pressure against the U.N. investigations, and officials worked hard—and successfully—to prevent the general assembly meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva in April 1996 from adopting a resolution on the "comfort women" issue... The compensation dispute over the "comfort women" issue has strained bilateral relations between the two countries. Ethno-nationalistic sentiments have given rise to a renewed sense of historically rooted mutual hostility and contempt.

(emphasis mine)

I protest your removal of my valid summary. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)