Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:14, 21 March 2004

US and South Korean use

Recently added: "US had same system in occupied Japan after World War II, and it was stopped by Eleanor Roosevelt. Even South Korea had same system in Korean War and Vietnam War."

References: "

• Molasky, Michael S. American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa, Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0415191947 ISBN 0415260442

• Moon, Katharine H. S. Sex Among Allies, Columbia University Press, 1997. ISBN 0231106424"

The online reference seems to discuss organised prostitution, which is not quite the same thing as CW. Am I missing something? Markalexander100 09:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We can know about RAA or Japanese Comfort Women Center for Occupation Force here.

Most of them are wrote in anti-Japanese context. Please read facts among political words.

Also this page says about it too. But "When USA occupation forces to Japan came to Tokyo, what they said first was 'Prepare comfort women club for military officers' Do you know this ?? They loved this club much for long years." is incorrect. It was prepared from Japanese side, stopped in 1946 not "long years", and is not only for officers but also soldiers.

Here is report on Korean kidnapped Comfort Women in Korean War. But it is Japanese text page of Korean News Paper, JoongAng Ilbo. Unfortunately, this page is not accepted machine translation.

Comfort Women system of other nations including South Korea is here.

This is machine translation of a Japanese page. I'm searching English page. Language barrier is serious problem among us.Kadzuwo 12:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Language barrier

"Language barrier is serious problem among us." I agree. :) Maybe this would be a better place to put the material, in Japanese? Is there an online reference for a US or Korean government program of rape? Isolated acts of individuals, or paid prostitution, are not the same thing. (I've reverted your edits until we sort something out). Markalexander100 02:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RAA was prepared by Japanese side in just same manner of Japanese Comfort Women system. Why don't you understand it? Korean systems are much worst, according to _Korean_ scholars. you can read Japanese pages in English thru machine translations.Kadzuwo 10:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kadzuwo, please feel free to post links to Japanese sources here -- some of us can read them without translation. Jpatokal 02:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Good news!! I recoｍmend a book これでは困る韓国 ISBN 4879195707. This is conversations of two Korean Scholars.

Now, "us"? Are You a group?Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, the single link on the Japanese page isn't very neutral, with titles like "The Lie of Forced Comfort Women" (慰安婦強制連行のウソ) and criticisms of sources with terms like "silly little book" (インチキ本)... Jpatokal 02:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know it. I think just neutral is very difficult about such problems. So, we must see both sides like a good judge. Anyway always we must remember anyone can be a liar occasionally.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now, is :慰安婦強制連行のウソ "The Lie of Forced Comfort Women"? It is transated as "The lie of comfort-women forcible taking" by my reccomended machine translation.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Saying that RAA women were forced into the job is a minority view, it's your job to produce evidence for it. In particular, do you have a source to back up the bit about "virgins"? Jpatokal 09:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like most of Korean comfort women, they were persuaded in situation they can not say "No". I know a case of Korean comfort women said "No", she did only non-sexual works like laundry for other women.

Please see Japanese page of Recreation and Amusement Association. it has some reference books.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed the line regarding official settlement of the comfort women issue since 1) no source was given; 2) if the issue were settled, the following sentence about victims still seeking official compensation and refusing the semi-/unofficial compensation does not make any sense; 3) the issue of comfort women has quite obviously not been officially settled since it is an ongoing obstacle to South Korean-Japanese relations; 4) the statement attributes the settlement to the 1965 normalisation treaty, the text of which is available here on Misplaced Pages, and that treaty is deafeningly silent on the issue.