From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: on extraterritoriality (I)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:08:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.030754.26444@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:
># This is the first part of my reply to Mike Fester.
># The replies are segmented as it would be long, and to highlight
># specific points to be issued.  This part is mostly introductory,
># so by itself is not so interesting. (YH)

I hope you are addressing the passage from Chamberlain specifically quoted.

>In article <1993Jan19.161203.1632@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>Omitted: Mr Hiraga says he never bothered to read the reference I provided. 
>
>Hmmm... and again and again...:
>>...You may read Chamberlain, as you have claimed you have not...
>>...Wrong. Read the reference...
>>...It sure did. Again, READ...
>>...I suggest you read the reference I provided...
>>(and you may feel free to post your own.)...
>
>I never thought we were playing an I-got-more-sources-than-you-do game.

We're not. I did PROVIDE references, however.

>>He provides none of his own.
>
>Oh. so:
>YH>I ...have seen other sources, including the original diplomatic documents
>YH>compiled by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
>isn't enough.  OK, you'll get your list.  But later.

Thank you.

>Before that, I find the repeated insistence on
>"read the reference[=Chamberlain]" to be very peculiar.
>It matters less what Chamberlain did write or did think.
>What really matters is what the facts are.
>If Chamberlain had the facts right, good.  Reinforcive evidence.
>If he does not, that is, if we face contradictory observations,
>then we must work toward resolving the conflicts or show that
>one of them is incorrect (in this case, this turns out to be Chamberlain).
>What I provided so far provides sufficient grounds to suspect
>that what you stated (referring Chamberlain) was wrong.
>The only rational response to this (as far as I can conceive) is to:
>* provide further details from Chamberlain, preferrably quoted lines
>  so that we can both examine what he says, and/or
>* provide supplementary sources that support Chamberlain's claims.
>You did neither.  Just the insistent repetition above, which provides
>no information and stalls the discussion.

So, please show where what Chamberlain wrote was wrong.

>Oh, but why bother.
>Here is a list (cumbersome) of what I have gone through so far,
>with additions as of today (English translations of Japanese titles are
>mine: correct them if necessary).

>In my following article,
>we shall go into the exciting adventure of comparing multiple
>(and conflicting) sources, trying to build a coherent picture
>from them.

Thank you. Now, please show were Chamberlain (I re-posted the passage yesterday,
BTW. First post was in August 1992.) was incorrect. You did not address any of 
the issues in your first post. Eg, you write:

>Note the year 1876.
>As said in my other article, the US and Japan reached an agreement
>in 1878 that reduced the unequality in TRADE (not jurisdiction).

How is it surprising to you that a treaty in 1876 would not mention a treaty
in 1878? I repeat, from my previous post

"One country, the United States, which had always been Japan's kindest patron,
did, no doubt, show signs of breaking away from the league of Western powers,
and made a separate treaty in 1876, whereby all the chief points in dispute
were surrendered. This treaty, however, contained one clause which invalidated
all the rest, - a clause to the effect that the treaty was not to go into force
until all the other powers should have concluded treaties of a similar purport.

...

True, some declare that the paralysing little clause in this treaty was 
inserted, not by the American negotiator, but by the Japanese Government it-
self! Impossible, it will be said. Improbable, assuredly. Still, when the reader
calls to mind what has been mentioned concerning Prince Iwakura's alleged
tergiversations, he will be led to hesitate before rejecting the possibilty of
such a thing. It will be seen immediately below that on two occasions more 
recent, the Japanese negotiators did actually shift their basis at the eleventh
hour; and if private individuals often tremble to see their heart's desire
on the eve of accomplishment, and would give the world to recall it at the last
moment, why should not the same be sometimes true of governments?"

Mike


-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan