Via: uk.ac.leeds.scs; Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:37:20 +0000
Distribution: world
X-News-Gateway: NewsGateway@phaze.UUCP (NewsGateway 1.0 by Pierre Rioux)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 16:38:28 GMT
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
From: ross-c@scs.leeds.ac.uk
To: usenet@phaze.cam.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Comfort girls?

In article <1i15rhINN90v@shelley.u.washington.edu> you write:
>In article <11646.9212301418@csparc12.scs.leeds.ac.uk> ross-c@scs.leeds.ac.uk writes:
>>In article <1hng6mINNbga@shelley.u.washington.edu> you write:
>>>>In article <1992Dec28.143403.8912@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> bgt@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (barbara.tongue) writes:
>>>>
>>>>According to certain estimates approximately 300,000 Ameriasian
>>>>children were produced as a result of the Vietnam War, and most
>
>I said:
>
>>>Although the statistics are correct, you must also remember the 
>>>case is very different in this case. The forced sex slaves of the
>>>Japanese military are charging that the Japanese government was 
>>>in charge of overseeing such operations.
>>
>>>I hardly think that the U.S. government encouraged forced prostitution.
>>							   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>According to a '60 Minutes' documentary I saw *some years ago*, many of the
>>amerasian children in Vietnam were not born to prostitutes. This was explained
>>as a common misconception (no pun intended). 
>
>I do not disagree with your statement. However, my point was made well and

It was ambiguous at best. You were following up an article that mentioned 
prostitution and 30,000 Amerasians born in Vietnam. The original article 
inferred a connection between the two, and your followup did not dispute this.
I was not objecting to your opinion on this point because it was not stated.
However, by quoting the original article and arguing the point about
*FORCED* prostitution or not, you certainly were not making the probable
origin of these children any clearer. That is the reason I posted.

>an argument about who Amerasians were born to, prostitutes or not, but 
>whether the American government has committed more crimes of sexual offense
>during times of war than the Japanese government.

I was not posting to argue the point, I was posting to clarify some of the
references (30,000 of them). You do not have the right to judge what should
be posted in soc.culture.japan or not. That such postings were needed is
supported by the fact that several others independantly posted that some of
these children may have been due to love, not prostitution.

>
>Perhaps my use of the term "forced prostitutes" was slightly general.

Actually, I would say specific. By removing only "forced prostitution" from
the context, you left in prostitution in general. The repeated reference to
30,000 Amerasians in the context of an argument involving prostitution is
what I objected to.

>In any case, I am certain that it was very clear what I was trying to
>say (if you hadn't erased the latter half of the previous post). Your
>response obviously weighed my perceived argument that Vietnamese 
>prostitutes were to blame for the amount of Amerasians against the

I was not at all objecting to what you said, more what you didn't say.
No amount of quoting of your original article would have included that.
And yes, I have re-read your posting. The need to clarify the origin of
the 30,000 children was in no way removed by anything you posted.

Cheers,

Ross-c