Talk:Port Arthur massacre (China)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Weasel Words

This section in particular:

"The dichotomy of the accounts is illustrative not simply of how American rivalries to sell newspapers boiled over into reporting, but of divergent Western views of the period regarding Japan. While some viewed Japan as the "Civilizer of Asia" or "Britain of the East", others saw in her the "Yellow Peril" that threatened to overrun Asia. The fact that at the time of the war Japan was in the process of renegotiating the unequal treaties forced upon her by Western powers in the 1850s and 1860s lent further impetus to attempts to both elevate and denigrate her in the foreign press."

Frederic Villiers' introduction to his account certainly does not support such an allegation; he takes pains to say that the Japanese he traveled with were hospitable. Quite simply, this section needs a reference, preferably one directly related to reporting on the Port Arthur Massacre. --Edwin Herdman 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Edwin. I am not sure what allegation you are referring to here. It is simply stating that there were widely different views of Japan and its behavior at Port Arthur. Reading the account of Villiers, he does indeed offer some praise to the Japanese, but it comes off as only a dramatic segue: i.e. so much more the shock when the cold blooded butchery took place! He talks of Japan as being childlike, taken to bloody tantrums, when at the same time it is taken as the Light of Asia. He writes, “But the Japanese are yet young in the ways of civilization and on occassion can be exceedingly cruel; but like most children they are very sensitive about being found out...”(Villiers, 326). Later on he provides another anecdote of how in Port Arthur, in the midst of the bloodletting, he distracted some Japanese soldiers with some insignia so that, “like children, their attention had been diverted by a new toy” (Villiers, 329). Thus did this representative of true civilization divert at least a small portion of this ongoing massacre. The subtext in all this is clear, but then you have to consider the place and period. Taken as a product of his time, I would say Villiers lands in the camp of: Japan is coming along but still has a way to go before it can join the real civilized nations. In any case, it is not the place here to offer personal interpretations of the accounts but to look at secondary sources. Numerous articles on the massacre and its reporting in the western press talk of the issue of unqueal treaty revision and the role that played in the reporting. This in turn dovetailed with press rivalires. In fact, Villiers himself says in his account that the rivalries among the western press contributed to the different accounts. (Villiers, 326).Straitgate 08:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Port Arthur massacre was not to have actually happened

It is thought that this event is a false report and is not true among the history researchers in Japan.

China is using it for propaganda（Patriotism and education on anti-day） though it knows it to be a false report.

Port Arthur massacre is not described in an official history book on Japan at all.--202.157.19.146 04:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)