Talk:History of Ryūkyū Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] POV tag

I added the POV tag because I think the vast majority of this article has a definite anti-Japanese tone to it, at times bordering on completely unbalanced polemic. Doubtless there are many negative things that can be said about Japanese treatment of Ryukyuans - however, it is obviously wrong for an encyclopaedia article to be used as an instrument of propaganda. The feel of reading propaganda can be mitigated by adding citations for a start.195.194.199.50 13:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind providing some examples of what you believe is POV? Specifically, what do you believe is "bordering on completely unbalanced polemic"? I think the article may seem anti-Japanese because the majority of the information provided concerns Japan/Okinawa relations; I think that if more Pre-Satsuma information were added, the article would maybe feel more balanced. Turly-burly 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the article is some times lacking a more distant point of view. There are too many "small stories" included, like the princess lillies, the baby in the cave and so on, without a comment about the meaning of such stories in a greater context. I would suggest to put them all together in a different section or to cut them out completely. But in general I really don`t have the feeling that this article has some propaganda agitations.--83.124.20.144 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And I think that the same problem applies to rhetoric dealing with Americans. 70.249.73.2 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely so Jmlk17 07:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how you can go into the history of the Ryukyu Kingdom and *not* go into various abuses committed there. While I'll certainly agree that the rapes of US service members were largely blown out of proportion, the fact remains that the Okinawan people have been repeatedly subjudgated throughout their history. I realize I'm somewhat biased, however not referring to the events is akin to talking about the history of the Jews, without mentioning their various flights. EvilCouch 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, now I see some of what you guys were referring to. I've trimmed it up a bit to try to bring it back to a NPOV EvilCouch 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title and Ryukyu vs. Ryukyuan

Italic textI believe that 'Ryukuan History' is an inappropriate title for an article for a number of reasons:

(1) "Ryukuan" is a non-standard term. It is not widely in useage ('Rykyuan' turns up about 5000 results on Google, as opposed to 281,000 for 'Ryukyu'), nor can I see it anywhere on any official webpages of Okinawa prefecture.

Ryukyuan is a standard term. It is used by experts in the field (called "Ryukyuanists"). There is a journal called "The Ryukyuanist".

(2) While 'Ryukyu History' would perhaps be an appropriate title for an article, it is not an appropriate title for this article, since the Ryukyu Kingdom ceased to exist in 1879, this article is concerned with events after 1879. Also, since 'Ryukyu History' is a subset of the history of Okinawa, it seems to me that 'History of Okinawa' is a more appropriate title for an article (a section of which would be devoted to Ryukyu History).

I agree with this.
While the Ryukyu Kingdom may have ceased to exist in 1879, the current name for the archipelago stretching from Yonaguni in the southwest to Tanegashima in the north is still "Ryukyu". You seem to not understand the proper usage of the terms "Ryukyu" and "Okinawa", so I will outline them for you:
Okinawa can be used to refer to Okinawa Prefecture, the Okinawa Islands (ie, Okinawa, Ie, and Kume), or to the main island of Okinawa. More recently it has been used in Japanese to refer to all of the Ryukyus south of Amami Gunto (which is an integral part of the Ryukyus), which anyways are all part of Okinawa prefecture.
Ryukyu is used exclusively to refer to the ENTIRE ARCHIPELAGO which includes all the islands between Kyushu and Taiwan.
Ryukyuan history is NOT a subset of "history of Okinawa", rather, "History of Okinawa" is a subset of "Ryukyuan history".
Well indeed as a foreigner, the history of more far back times would more likely be what are concerned. Something about the Ryukyu Kingdom should be added.

(3) While the borders of the Ryukyu Kingdom may not have been the same as the borders of present-day Okinawa, 'Okinawa' is the current name for the region. Consequently, the majority of links to this article will be from other Okinawa-related articles, or people seeking information on Okinawa's history.

The name 'Okinawa' does not apply to the entire region about which this article is written. All of the islands of the Ryukyus have had similar histories, even though many of them were made part of Kagoshima Prefecture when annexed. For example, they all faced brutalities from Japan during WWII, and they were all occupied by the US longer than the rest of Japan (including those islands which belong to Kagoshima Prefecture). The civilian occupational administration of the Ryukyus was divided into four branches, Amami, Okinawa, Miyako, and Yaeyama. Amami, although inseparable from the Ryukyus as far as language, history, and culture go, currently belongs to Kagoshima Prefecture and the only name that includes Amami Gunto is Ryukyu(an) Islands.

If you believe otherwise (or if you agree), let's discuss it!

--Tremolo 02:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--Node 22:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Node ue! I had misunderstood your useage of 'Ryukyu(an)' - I had assumed you were talking about the (former) nation the Ryukyu Kingdom, but I now understand that you mean the history of the Ryukyu island chain as a whole. Hence, we're both essentially right: the history of the Ryukyu Kingdom is (seen one way) part of the history of what is now Okinawa prefecture, which in turn is a part of the history of the Ryukyu archipelago.

Anyway, here are my thoughts:

I agree that 'History of the Ryukyu Islands' (or whatever you'd like to call it) could be a valid and interesting article. However, I think 'History of Okinawa' is also a perfectly valid article. Since we agree that Okinawan history is not the same thing as 'Ryuku(an) history', I hope we might also agree about that.

There are a number of reasons I'm in favour of having an article entitled 'History of Okinawa':

(1) It seems logical to me that the 'Okinawa Prefecture' page should have a more in-depth 'history' page. I have tried to keep the Okinawa prefecture page tidy since I overhauled it a while ago. I don't like deleting things other people have written, so when people put things that strike me as contentious or messy or too in-depth on the Okinawa prefecture page, I tend to just move them over to the History of Okinawa page in the hope that someone else (perhaps you...?) might one day beat them into shape.

I believe this page already explains the difference between Okinawa prefecture and the Ryukyuan islands; if it doesn't that can easily be added.

(2) I think changes of terminology can be confusing: if a person is looking for information on the history of Okinawa, and they find themselves re-directed to a page on Ryukyu history, they might well be puzzled. A person who knows the word 'Okinawa' doesn't necessarily also know the (less well-known) word 'Ryukyu'. I don't think my misunderstanding of your use of the word was particularly stupid, and if I was confused by it, I suspect that someone who knows nothing about Okinawa or the Ryukyu islands and is looking for info might well also be confused...

If it is explained, however, it's not generally as confusing

(3) Though an article on the history of the Ryukyu island chain might well be interesting (I'm sure you know more about it than I do), as I understand it, the northern islands in the chain were never part of the Ryukyu Kingdom, and have long been part of Japan, and consequently have a rather separate history. The Yaeyama islands, Miyako, and Okinawa Honto were all part of the Ryukyu Kingdom (and are now part of Okinawa prefecture). Most of the islands of Kagoshima prefecture were not, and are, I believe, culturally quite distinct. It seems to me that this is another reason for keeping the 'History of Okinawa' separate from the history of the island chain as a whole.

No, Amami Gunto was indeed a part of the Ryukyu Kingdom. I think Tokara Retto and some of Osumi Shoto were as well, but I'm not sure. Amami Gunto is hundreds of miles away even from the closest *island* belonging to Kagoshima, it is geographically clearly separated even from Tokara and Osumi. The culture and speech of Amami Gunto are clearly of the Ryukyuan type rather than the mainland type, as the language spoken there is considered a Ryukyuan language and the culture bears more similarities to that of Okinawa than that of mainland Kagoshima.
The history of Amami Gunto has only been separate since the invasion of the Kingdom in the 1600s and its being turned into a puppet state of Satsuma-han; Amami Gunto was made a sort of "overseas territory" of Satsuma-han and was under the same government as the mainland, the rest of the Ryukyus were made into a puppet state where the leaders of Satsuma-han had the only real control; however economic and social circumstances in Amami Gunto as well as all the Ryukyus south of them remained very similar especially in comparison with those of the mainland. Also, during WWII, Amami Gunto was part of the US invasion of the Ryukyus, and it was occupied for the same length and under the same occupational administration as was what is now Okinawa prefecture.
Indeed, all the regions of Ryukyu did at one point of time or another have their own separate history: The main island was only unified in the 1200s, I believe, and from there it took 200 or 300 years before Miyako, Yaeyama, and Amami were under the control of the central government in Shuri. However, they share a very long period of common history with each other, and in modern times are culturally, linguistically, and genetically unified as against the mainland.

So... what do you think?

ps. about 'Ryukyuan': I'm not disputing its validity as a term, I was just wary of it because it's not as widely used as 'Ryukyu' (used as an adjective). Either way, I think it's important to make it as clear as possible exactly what is being dealt with: since 'Ryukyu' refers to both a culture and an island chain, I'd generally favour unambiguous titles like 'History of the Ryukyu Islands' or 'The Ryukyu Kingdom' rather than 'Ryukyu(an) History'. I wonder if there's a case to be made for using 'Ryukuan' to refer to the island chain and 'Ryukyu' to refer to the culture ('Ryukyu dance', 'Ryukyu music', etc...)

"Ryukyuan History" is not ambiguous as the history of the Kingdom and of the islands are one and the same. Experts ("Ryukyuanists") are unanimous in the opinion that "Ryukyu" refers only to the tributary state to China when used in English and that "Ryukyuan" is the adjectival form to be used similarly to "Japanese". Also, I have seen more references to the "Ryukyuan kingdom" than to the "Ryukyu kingdom", however "Ryukyu kingdom" is already used all over Wikipedia and to change it would take more effort than I believe it is really worth.

--Tremolo 02:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--Node 00:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Article Sources

Ryukyuan History or Okinawan History is not a big problem. What is the problem is that the history of the Ryukyuan Kingdom is not properly described here. It does not seem that " Battle of Okinawa" is a good source for the history of the kingdom. If no one has a good history source, I will　plan to revise it.Trek011 05:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are also other problems with the book "Battle of Okinawa" :
  1. It is quite obviously sympathetic to American military forces. Japanese soldiers are portrayed as savage killers, while American soldiers are portrayed as heroic liberators.
  2. The portrayal of Japanese military actions is accurate. I think it's important that this article cover the "betrayal" by Mainland Japan, from which many Ryukyuans died. Then, when the war ended, Japan gave up Ryukyu easily like an old unwanted garment. Today, the powers that be in Tokyo are opposed to, for example, the Okinawan Plan for Millenium Metropolis (or whatever it was called -- some sort of proposal to make Okinawa an Autonomous Region in Japan with completely internationally open ports, like Hong Kong in China), using such reasons as "Okinawa is an integral part of the Japanese nation". However, the manner in which Japanese military actions are contrasted to American military actions is very unbecoming of the writer. He vastly understates the unnessecary, hostile, brutal, etc., American actions in the history of the Ryukyus, starting with before Bettelheim and his abuse of the Ryukyuan hospitality, all the way up to the present with sexual abuse and noise problems caused by the bases. In fact, he refers to the sexual assault as if it is due to Okinawan traditionalists being upset by their children dating Americans, which is preposterous at best and highly offensive at worst.
  3. He is not an expert on the subject. I don't know, maybe he studied it extensively, but he can't be very smart about Okinawa itself -- just the battle it seems. He refers to 3 different places, "Chin", "Gim", and "Kin", as totally different locations, when in fact they are all alternative names for Kin, Okinawa, as anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of Okinawan geography would know.
  4. His writing often resembles the crazed ranting of a WWII fanatic who has little respect for the victims, both military and civilian. He seems only to care about the sizes or numbers of guns, troops, troop movements, and especially historically unverifiable anecdotes from vets which paint the enemy as devils, as with most WWII nuts.
For this reason, I think this article should rely perhaps more heavily on more reliable histories, such as Iha Fuyu's "Ko Ryukyu", the classic reference for Ryukyuan history. --Node 01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Or at least G. Kerr's "Brief History of an Island People", dated perhaps but classic...I don't think it's fair or accurate to focus on WWII, even if it weighs heavily on minds today. I think the articles Ryukyu Kingdom and History of the Ryukyu Kingdom should be merged into this article, which should then be heavily edited: new information should be added, along with many more external links. I also think "Ryukyuan" sounds funny, since I hear the word "Ryukyu" often used to describe (among other things) the "Ryukyu Islands", "Ryukyu University" (The University of the Ryukyus), and the "Ryukyu Kingdom". Turly-burly 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for Merger

The "proposed merger" tag has been up for some time now. As for me, I think the merger should happen. There are too many "Ryukyu history" articles floating around, and I think it will confuse people. I think that the "Ryukyu Kingdom" article can stand alone and be linked from this one as "See main article at", as long as its receives additional significant content concerning specifics. It also needs to be headed with a disambiguation notice that immediately alerts the reader to the difference between the Ryukyu Islands, THE Ryukyu Kingdom (i.e. the power that united Okinawa and spurred significant cultural development), and historical kingdoms within the Ryukyu Islands (e.g., Chuzan and those of the outer islands). The other article, History of the Ryukyu Kingdom, is a poorly-done rehash of Ryukyu Kingdom. IF no one disapproves within the next week or so, I've the time and inclination to make the necessary edits and to add to this article concerning pre-Ryukyu Kingdom history. Turly-burly 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been ten days since I posted this call, and much longer since I posted the tag on the article page. I'm going to begin the merger, but go a bit slowly, just in case. Turly-burly 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to remove the merger tag for the merger with Ryukyu Kingdom. I think that such a definitive period in Ryukyuan history is deserving of its own article. If there are no objections, I'll remove it in a few days. Turly-burly 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe that the merger is warranted. I'd do it myself if I had time. Unschool 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we keep the Ryukyu History and the Ryukyu Kingdom articles seperated and link from the history to the kingdom article from the right section. One should merge all the smaller articles to the proper topic (either history or kingdom) so there're only those two left (like this... Egypt, History of Egypt and Ancient Egypt).

b.t.w. I'd rename the ryukyuan history to History of Ryukyu or History of the Ryukyus... so the ryukyuan/ryukyuish can be removed.--AnKaiLong 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name has been hashed out (v.s.), and redirects are in their proper places so that all bases are covered. "Ryukyuan history" is the proper name. I'm also pretty sure there are only two history articles now...if there aren't, there should be. Turly-burly 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

I don't see what is POV about the "Tension with the U.S." section marked with a possible non-neutral tag. I am removing said tag pending justification here. Turly-burly 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a statistic stating that the crime commited by US Forces personnel is out of proportion compared to that of population of the prefectual residents. With that said, the feeling I get from the whole post WW2 section of the article is that somehow US Forces personnel are the most horrible people on earth, and if this is the case, they should have have been rejected from every corner of the globe decades ago. Let me preempt by saying that I am aware of the occasional protest of the local populace directed towards the US military bases, but outside the protest of the three people that raped that little girl (THAT, I understand and condone), the numbers are laughably small when compared to the total number of people in the prefecture. I need to see proof, which I somehow doubt is readily available outside of someone's POV opinion. Inoue Makoto 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I re-read the post-WW2 section and don't think I see any facts that are disputed; people may not like this section b/c it doesn't mention the "good things" that U.S. contributes to the island. If someone cares to write a paragraph about how the Marines sometimes plant flowers or help handicapped people, this would be factual and might balance things out a little. I have a feeling, however, that it would only serve to make American forces look worse, i.e. "The American presence in Okinawa probably protects Japan from any possible (however unlikely) attack from East Asia. Sometimes the Americans do community service, and though they were the ones who prompted and assisted in the destruction of the island and murder of its civilian population, they were responsible enough after WW2 to round up survivors into labor camps and give them food and medicine. American military personnel also sometimes crash helicopters into school buildings, beat up local taxi drivers and snack bar girls, use up arable land building Macaroni Grills and officers' clubs, and gang rape little girls." Granted the article wouldn't sound like THAT, but I have a feeling -- just a feeling, mind you -- that a presentation of good things about americans on the island woven into a presentation of the bad things would only serve to make the article look even more anti-American.

And I think you're right; I think they don't exist, these statistics stating that crime by American personnel is proportionately worse, and there are probably several reasons such statistics might not exist, only one of which may be that the crime by American personnel is NOT worse. I don't *think* this Wikipedia article makes any such assertion about "proportionately worse", but I may not be reading closely enough. Maybe one might possibly get the FEELING that this is true, but then again, getting a bad feeling about a subject after reading its Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily make the article POV.

It is also worth noting that protests are more than "occasional"; they are quite regular, although they often take the form of "marches for peace" that address not only the base issues but also broader interests in nonviolent conflict resolution. Official "protests" in the sense that "people come together and specifically target military presence" happen at least once a year (to my knowledge) in the form of people gathering to hold hands and link arms around the fences and listen to various speakers about nonviolence. Turly-burly 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Liberator against Japanese Oppressor?

It is amusing sometimes. This incredible ability of some American to completely blank out something inconvenient. This article, for example, conveniently omit that, in the Battle of Okinawa, Okinawan fought fiercly along with Japanese militaly. Also, where is a mention of the fact that, after Okinawa was annexed to America, Okinawan demonstrated in en mass to demand that the island be reunited to Japan. I'm not saying there aren't mainland<->Okinawa mentality but this "American liberating the nation of Okinawa" is a laugh. Vapour

[edit] Article renamed

I've renamed this article from Ryukyuan history to Ryūkyūan history in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Ry%C5%ABky%C5%AB_Islands_efbe.html"