The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[yin26]

I think it's quite good, in fact, to think of yourself as a member of the human race. And it gets people nowhere to say: "I am spotless." On that, we agree.

But you have to understand the the truth about Japan in the 20th century is still trying to surface. Certainly when I took Asian history courses at UCLA, all we learned about Japan was "the good stuff." Learning the good stuff is fine and great. And there is a LOT of amazing stuff about Japan, and I am not condemning the average Japanese person (though I condemn its right-wing that continues in power today).

BUT: The "might makes right" argument is horribly flawed and will get you in BIG trouble one day with people who suffered under the kinds of things I linked above. That is all.

As for you personally, I have taken no offense. I realize you can get heated about this topic as well. If you care to continue the discussion, I'm sure we can do so civily (pun intended).

[yin26]

By the way, the "I like brutality" comment stems from the "Might makes right" argument. You might not techinicall "like" brutality (obviously you don't), but when you praise a country for being powerful etc., you have to look at HOW they became powerful.

That is a very misunderstood and overlooked point, unfortunately, for otherwise we as a human race directly and indirectly set ourselves up for the next round of horrid images. This is why more peaceful examples SHOULD and MUST be made more public.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by yin26
By the way, the "I like brutality" comment stems from the "Might makes right" argument. You might not techinicall "like" brutality (obviously you don't), but when you praise a country for being powerful etc., you have to look at HOW they became powerful.

I just want to make a quick point to clear up a misunderstanding but I no longer want to debate this anymore. When I said "that's the way it is", I didn't mean "might makes right". I don't think it's right but I don't believe it can change. I believe people just abuse power because it's in their nature. I wish it was otherwise, but it's unfortunately not to be.

Instead of these weighty matters, I'd rather discuss silly things such as whether a particular wonder is better than another or whether a civ-specific unit in an unimportant things such as a game is balanced or not. I'm old and have had these debates many times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue because I get emotionally involved and I don't want that. I'd rather be happy. Sorry.

I'm sure you'll find plenty of other people to discuss these things. If we discuss again, it will be about games such as Civ3 rather than philosophical issues.

[yin26]

I'm old and have had these debates many times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue because I get emotionally involved and I don't want that. I'd rather be happy. Sorry.

Totally understood. Perhaps we will meet on the battlefield of silliness one day! Thanks anyway for your contributions in this thread. Your comments made me bring up some other important issues. Thanks, and have fun with Civ3.

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by yin26
Jeje:
And you are right, the decision to include a civ should be based on 1) representing civs somewhat evenly around the world

Iikk!!!
Did I say that? I hope not, at least it wasn't my intention.
What I did say is that there should be different types of civs. I didn't measn by this that they would have to be spread around the globe with this.

Couse I think that having a collection of different nations with same special abilities would be boring. Take a look at the Civ3 - Developper Update. The Civilization Abilities map shows how they try to induvidualize each nation. OK, some with same do exist (Ex. Aztecs&Japaneese), but mostly they are different. I think this is the right way.

So if you want to have in Civ3 nations with different abilities you have two possibilties:
1) You give two abilities to a random nation
2) Select two abilities and then try to find a nation/people that would be described by those well

I know which method I would prefer.

[yin26]

Ah, I see. I was assuming too much. Within the confines you mention, though, it would be nice to have civs from around the world so that you can play on a world map and try all kinds of things. It needn't be that way, of course, if that makes for a weaker game.

By the way, I've been in Korea for 5 years. I decided to come here for a variety of reasons, not least of which is I really like the people.

[ruckus9]

Instead of these weighty matters, I'd rather discuss silly things such as whether a particular wonder is better than another or whether a civ-specific unit in an unimportant things such as a game is balanced or not. I'm old and have had these debates many times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue because I get emotionally involved and I don't want that. I'd rather be happy. Sorry.

I have read alot of threads in these forums and to me it seems inevitable that people will eventually get very passionate about these topics.

Why?

Because Civ is about competing cultures and it's almost impossible to be unbiased about it as long as everyone has their culture and compares it to others (Even for those who say they believe in only the human race). For example, noone wants to hear about their culture not being "worthy" enough to be in the game.

But to tell the truth when the topics get heated I really like reading them. (Not so much posting my own ideas because I know you guys are a lot smarter than me )And also things may be learned in the process. We can't just avoid these issues anyway. Anyway that's my take on it.

Also, I'm far from a Korean nationalist, I think of myself as more of an American but for my mother's sake the Korean pride can get to me sometimes...

Feel free to refute me. I figure there's always someone out there to prove you wrong no matter how good an argument you make, anyway

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by yin26
Ah, I see. I was assuming too much. Within the confines you mention, though, it would be nice to have civs from around the world so that you can play on a world map and try all kinds of things. It needn't be that way, of course, if that makes for a weaker game.

By the way, I've been in Korea for 5 years. I decided to come here for a variety of reasons, not least of which is I really like the people.

Thx.
Yes of course we can have from around - I would also like it, but I do not consider it as a requirement.

OK, had you visited Korea before your desision to move or was it blindfolded?
(And I do not count in the trip - were you made your workcontract)

Originally posted by ruckus9
(Not so much posting my own ideas because I know you guys are a lot smarter than me )

Ok - I'll tell you a well kept secret (Don't tell others though
This is not true, they aren't any smarter - they just want to give such an impression. So be smart, join in and see through their illusion, couse they don't bite.

[Adm.Naismith]

What a complex and difficult thread!

Yin, you did a great research showing how relevant Korea was/is.

Now you are shifting into a "Korea deserve a better aknowledge and Civ "awards" than Japan", showing us important (and yes, horrific) images of Japanese soldiers.
That's more relevant than any game debate, but now is becoming off-topic (IMHO), so please go back splitting the two arguments.

The hardest obstacle is Civ limits: it can't represent in a playable game (as deep it can go into a simulation) the complexity of mankind history for the last six thousand years.

Lot of tribes where interesting, but fail to fit into the game. Relevant countries never fit in our western history (and viceversa) because they wheren't more relevant at the time we encountered them or are already disappeared (how many Civ crushed in game before we ever meet them?).

We can (and must) cut somewhere, and doing so we are always privileging one Civ aspect over the others: tech research is more relevant of trading abilities? What about painting? And oral traditions? Songs? Musical instrument? Early medicine? A complex language? Fancy way to have sex? (no, really! some tribes had sexual culture quite different from western habits, at least as common for centuries).

Ask Napoleon, or Alexander the Great about more relevant trait of a Civ and you surely would have different opinion from Ghandi, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Pascal, Socrate...

We are reducing all that complexity of million, then billion of people for 6000 years, into a Civ box
Let me say that's not only a PkZip effort, is more like a real picture to Jpeg heavy loss translation

We can chose a different "loss" algorithm, a different "pattern", different "options"... Call them different Civ Packs, or MODs, or Scenario: everyone will privilege only as many facet of the real history (or alternative history, if you like) as the Civ engine can manage, but surely not everyone.

We are not perfect, too: look at history books printed under different political government! History change a bit every time, not only because of new discover (good) or political heavy censure (bad), but because we live in a society, and every society force us to look at some target and not to others.

While isn't Civ model forcing us as a victory condition to feed enough every people on Earth?

It isn't acceptable for Western culture the moral effort to be sure every man, woman and child on earth can have a home, a honest job, a decent medicine help, enough food and fundamental needs fullfilled to have a similar life duration than ours?

Please, look around and ask yourself the victory conditions of most of games around here (is not a Firaxis/Civ limit, I mean). Is this the best we can desire out of our life? A greater theme park? Coolest furniture of our house? A sure, painfull dead for every enemy around here? (and come on, if you are usually alone against everyone, aren't all enemy but you?).

Don't worry, now I'm shutting down philosophic mode forever.

Only please don't fight anymore about what civ/country deserve to be in Civ (if not under a well defined grid of element you want to use for limits).
Ask why you deserve to be into THIS civ... and take the consequences

[yin26]

We are reducing all that complexity of million, then billion of people for 6000 years, into a Civ box Let me say that's not only a PkZip effort, is more like a real picture to Jpeg heavy loss translation

EXCELLENT comment! LOL! I agree with you totally. And as I said, I understand why Korea is not in Civ3, and it won't bother me if it never makes it. My goal (which is accoplished at least to anybody who reads the opening) is to highlight that Korea is not a shadow on the map. It has a proud history and future.

As for the "who is better" debates, I'm actually not that interested. And as for Japan, I have said my peace. The images and the slowly correcting history books speak for themselves. But for some here, this might have been the first time to really consider Korea and its relationship to Japan. If it has been enlightening, I will be happy.

[YefeiPi]

Pembleton

This is ridiculous. You are so blinded by your championing of Korea that you can't look at anything objectively.

Japan is no more guilty of atrocities than any other "great" civilization. Any form of warfare is by definition an atrocity. Just to mention a few examples, China has slaughtered millions with the cultural revolution, the Americans had slavery and slaughtered the Native Americans, the Germans during the Hitler era I need not mention the details, etc. etc.

Are you going to argue that Korea is not guilty of any brutality? Until only recently South Korea was ruled by corruption with an "elected" president thanks to rigged ballots. Did the political prisoners have a fun time? Even now, under the new Nobel Peace Prize winning president there are still political prisoners not freed.

Should I even mention North Korea? Or I guess with your blindness they don't count. I guess they're not Korean?

Your denigration of Japan is just as racist and repugnant as the worst that they have done and are now doing. In the end, we are all human, and all humans are capable of atrocities as well as kindness or great achievements.

Ok, so every great country has had its own share of bloodshed. It's just that what Japan did was way too inhuman. Do you know what Chinese army do to the Japs when they are captured? They actually feed them well and later release them. But when Chinese soldiers are captured, they are tortured, severed, beheaded, chemically tested on and all sorts of worse-than-animal acts performed on them.

I mean any country who did that kind of mega atrocity and does not admit it, is not a worthy country. I mean even the Germans admitted their crimes to the jews, and their crimes, even though cruel, are not quite so much as the Japanese barbarianism.

In terms of civilization, I'd put Korea way on top of Japan

[Imran Siddiqui]

Intelligent move by the Japanese? NO! Oh I know, maybe because you haven't personally experienced or even heard of the pain and suffering the japs had done to other Asians. You still don't know why Japan is hated by so many people in Asia, do you? It's because not only they take land but the way they kill people! They gang rape pregnant women and slice their stomachs for their own perverted sexual pleasures, actually I won't get into detail of what they did because those acts are just inhuman and shame to human civilzation, hell, not even animals behave like the Jap soldiers during WW.

So now someone who admires rapid technological advancement by adoption of other civ's technology, and then using that might to conquer those nations that didn't adapt, also condones atrocities done by that civilization? Jeez, this is just like the Political Correctness debate!

So Japan is hated by Asia.... that, IMO, makes them more worthy of being included in Civ3. They had SUCH an impact on Asian politics and future, how CAN you exclude them? The fact of the matter is that Japan's Empire had a greater impact to 20th Century Asia than any other, even China!

Because they committed atrocities during it, they shouldn't be included?! Then perhaps Russia should be taken out because of their atrocities, as well as the English.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by yin26
EXCELLENT comment! LOL! I agree with you totally.

Thanks!
Now, if you or anyone else with english as his/her first/mother language can help me to clean up any mistake, I'll probably use it as my new signature here at Apolyton

Not the whole post, only the sentence

We are reducing all that complexity of million, then billion of people for 6000 years, into a Civ box Let me say that's not only a PkZip effort, is more like a real picture to Jpeg heavy loss translation

by Private Mail, please.

Thank you in advance!

[YefeiPi]

Imran

So Japan is hated by Asia.... that, IMO, makes them more worthy of being included in Civ3. They had SUCH an impact on Asian politics and future, how CAN you exclude them? The fact of the matter is that Japan's Empire had a greater impact to 20th Century Asia than any other, even China!

The fact that Japanese committed those atrocities certainly make them unworthy of being included in Civ3. It's like saying Germans deserve to be in Civ3 because they killed so many jews in such cruel ways.

Japan's impact on 20th century Asia is undoubtedly big, but why don't you ask yourself if the impact is a positive or negative one? I mean say if Thailand started attacking its neighbours and raped and tortured people, does that make then a big impact on Asia's history? It's a shameful impact that one self-respected country want to take claim of.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WHO CARES if it was positive or negative? Was it or was it NOT an impact?

If we are including morals over who gets to be in Civ3. I guess the only nations we'll be able to play are Switzerland and French Guyana!!!

And if Thailand was able to conquer even HALF of what Japan conquered, then yes, they should be included. Are you then making the argument that Germany should be excluded because of WW2?

[YefeiPi]

And if Thailand was able to conquer even HALF of what Japan conquered, then yes, they should be included.

So if you are saying if another country start attacking U.S, which I suppose is where you live, and the soldiers start to rape American women, slice their stomachs open and kill the infants then take men for chemical experiments, and performing a bunch of other inhuman acts. Then this country should definitely be included?

If that is your mentality then by all means, let us kick out all deserving civillizations of the game, and include the most cruel and barbaric countries.

[yin26]

WHO CARES if it was positive or negative? Was it or was it NOT an impact?

Firaxis would NEVER think of having a NAZI regime in Civ 3, right? They would never use Hitler as a leader in Civ 3, right? Tell us why, Imran.

Now, when most Civ 3 players play as Japan, they think of samurai and Nintendo. They think of the "good" things about Japan. What you have to realize is that when an Asian person (more clearly: Somebody living in China, Korea or this region), then they can't help but think of Japan in terms of the pictures I have given.

To those people, Japan was an Asian Hitler. The body count might have been less, but the methods were equally if not more horrid. You have seen the links, so this is undisputable. My parents-in-law, for example, still vividly remember being beaten by the Japanese if they spoke Korean.

They wear they fact that they can understand Japanese language as a badge of the most vile DIS-honor.

Surely Imran can understand such things...

But since Civ 3 is made for a Western audience, we must forgive the insensitivity...But then let us not raise a fuss when and if Korea makes and RTS featuring Hitler.

In fact, a number of Nazi flags are indeed showing up in Korean pubs and so forth because they don't quite make the connection between what Hitler did and what Japan did. This is sad. This is a mark against people who have a casual drink next to a Nazi flag.

So why should I expect more from a Western gaming company to understand the sensibilities of the Far East? I don't expect it, actually. But I DO want the record to be clear for people NOT to play this game ignorant of such issues.

[yin26]

I will predict the next question:

"So, Yin. Why is it seemingly O.K. to have Germany in the game?"

Like I said, it's a matter of regional perception. To China and Korea, Japan was nothing special for an AWFUL long time. And when Japan finally did exert its influence, you can see how they chose to do so. Thus, the image of Japan in that case is nearly totally a horrid one. Forget the samurai and Nintendo: Irrelevant to many.

Where do you draw the line? If we disqualified civs based on horrid acts, who would be left? And is that the point of a game anyway?

At the very least, an historical game such as Civ allows people to come in contact with information they might never have encountered otherwise. Though it may look like I have tried to lionize Korea and vilify Japan...that is only secondary to my primary purpose: To present information that some may never have seen before.

If the atrocities committed by Japan in the 20th century (some of the worst in human history) combined with the fact that Japan's leadership hides or lies about the past while continuing to visit the graves of CONVICTED war criminals DOESN'T send a 'caution' signal to you about the Japanese nation, that is fine. Not very logical or perceptive, but fine by me.

Just be aware of the issues. That is the first, important step.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So if you are saying if another country start attacking U.S, which I suppose is where you live, and the soldiers start to rape American women, slice their stomachs open and kill the infants then take men for chemical experiments, and performing a bunch of other inhuman acts. Then this country should definitely be included?

If that nation conquers most of the US and North and South America, making a large empire, then YES, they should be included because they have made amazing conquests.

Firaxis would NEVER think of having a NAZI regime in Civ 3, right? They would never use Hitler as a leader in Civ 3, right? Tell us why, Imran.

China's leader is Mao, and Russia's leader in Civ1 was Stalin (who was equal to Hitler is atrocities). Also the special unit for Germany in Civ3, as you are aware is the Panzer tank, a Nazi tank.

But then let us not raise a fuss when and if Korea makes and RTS featuring Hitler.

I hope not either. I have no problems with Adolf Hitler being the leader of Germany. Although I consider Bismarck and Fredrick II to be more worthy.

If the atrocities committed by Japan in the 20th century (some of the worst in human history) combined with the fact that Japan's leadership hides or lies about the past while continuing to visit the graves of CONVICTED war criminals DOESN'T send a 'caution' signal to you about the Japanese nation, that is fine.

And what does any of this have to do with Civ? Firaxis should make a political statement on the Rape of Nanking? or the Holocaust? or anything for that matter? Why should they?

Actually I'd prefer Firaxis get a little more un-PC. I was dissapointed that they didn't include any slavery in the game (though it is hard to model in such a game, CtP sucked at it), and they should have put genocide, in some form, in the game, as they somewhat did in SMAC with the nerve stapling of the drones.

You can say all you want about the atrocities of the Japanese, but you can't wipe away the fact that they had an incredibly large and powerful Asian Empire in the 1930s-40s. If Japan had merely been an economic marvel, I would not have favored its inclusion (just like I don't really care for the Dutch to be included). It is their Empire which makes them Civ3 worthy.

[yin26]

As I have said, they have their audience and should deliver accordingly. I would support your call for slavery and genocide, etc., if it were historically accurate, otherwise it's blood and gore with little other purpose...but that's not the open-endedness of Civ, so you can't. I would be fascinated, however, to see what some of the mod people could do.

It is clear to me that you and others don't care HOW a civ became powerful. In fact, you seem to put conquest above most else. To me, this is sad. It is a sad commentary on human nature. I urge you again to look at those images and say: "Japan is an honorable nation." I don't dispute the influence. But I despise the KIND of influence.

No nation is spotless...but few are as stained or deserving of scorn...yes, of being ripped even from a computer game.

On the other hand, the difficulty in leaving out such a nation when designing a game ABOUT world conquest is clear. Perhaps the day will come, however, when Sid's complaint that he didn't want so much focus on war in Civ will actually be backed up by the civs he puts in. Brilliant thought, eh?

Of course, it wouldn't sell as many copies. Again...human nature at its best.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is clear to me that you and others don't care HOW a civ became powerful. In fact, you seem to put conquest above most else. To me, this is sad. It is a sad commentary on human nature. I urge you again to look at those images and say: "Japan is an honorable nation." I don't dispute the influence. But I despise the KIND of influence.

You are really ****ing amazing aren't you?

A person's opinion on what type of civs to include in Civ3 means they think that civ is 'honorable' and that what they've done is good.

I'm sorry your ulterior motive of trying to include the Koreans in the game over the Japanese has failed (actually I'm not sorry), but you just have to accept it. The Koreans just aren't WORTH being in Civ3!!!

If calling those that support civs that are justified being in Civ3 as 'barbarians' (basically) that support the horrible actions of those civs and hold them up as honorable is your way of coping then get a God damned life!

I, for one, am deciding not to take this abuse anymore and will be leaving this thread.

If I sound angry in this post, it's because I really really am !

[yin26]

LOL! Ahhhh. Irman suddenly realizes on some lower-level that some of the nations he prizes show much got there in large part through horrid atrocities. Must be tough on the guy...but it will help him in the long run.

By the way, I've said about 1,000,000 times Firaxis has to sell games, right? What I have ALSO said is that:

Yes, Imran, if you praise Japan for its empire in the early 20th century, you are also praising HOW they got it. Sorry buddy. You can't separate the two thoughts. If this has caused you some pain and anger to realize, I am quite happy actually because it might mean you are finally understanding something here.

AGAIN: As for Civ3, I understand the choices. We like civs that kill. Understandable.

[yin26]

And, yes, when you post here about Japan being 'worthy' of being in Civ 3 because of its empire, you are also implicitly saying that their means of getting there were worthy, too.

Sorry. But true.

[yin26]

Just in case anybody wonders, I was actually prepared to go to Japan first instead of Korea. There are a great many wonderful things about its culture, people and history.

Unfortunately, the 20th century wasn't part of that...curiously, it's the 20th century Japan Imran seems to love so much.

[Saint Marcus]

Yin, you find Japanese acts of genocide and other crimes against humanity terrible, and make it an argument for not including the Japanese in the game. You do say that no nation is spotless, but what the Japanese did is no worse than what the other nations did. The English invented the concentration camps, used in the Boer War. And they, along with the Dutch, were the biggest slave traders in human history. The Germans murdered millions in camps in WW2, as did the Japanese. The Russians, Chinese and Koreans ended up directly or indirectly killing millions during the years of Communism. The Americans and Spanish wiped out most of the Native American population. The "noble" Romans basically invented genocide, Caesar boasted about killing 2 million Gauls in his conquests. So what nation does deserve to be in Civ2? The Japanese certainly are no worse than the Germans, Russians or Americans.

Though it may look like I have tried to lionize Korea and vilify Japan...that is only secondary to my primary purpose

Both secondary and primary motives are awfully colored, IMHO.

If Japan had merely been an economic marvel, I would not have favored its inclusion (just like I don't really care for the Dutch to be included).

Being Dutch, I agree with Imran (which is rare ). The Dutch have a magnificent and rich culture, and have and had a great influence on the world. But they don't qualify to be part of the first 16 civs, that's for sure. Though they certainly are more worthy than the Koreans.

BTW, the only influence Korea had on the world was helping the "invention" printing press by Gutenberg, and influencing the Japanese language. All in all, pretty marginal. Certainly not any better than the Dutch/Spanish/Byzantines/Arabs, who are all also not included in civ3.

Yes, Imran, if you praise Japan for its empire in the early 20th century, you are also praising HOW they got it.

Let me see. How did the Spanish get their empire? By peaceful diplomacy? No, by military conquest and genocide. Same goes for the Romans and Persians. Not to mention Alexander the great. And then you have the Americans of course. Did they peacefully "conquer" the west? No, they wiped the natives out. Did the French and English act in the best interested of the people they dominated? Doubt it, they opressed them and killed them by the thousands. We praise the Americans and Romans for their "empires", but they also got it by shedding blood. That simply goes for almost all of the civs.

[yin26]

...but what the Japanese did is no worse than what the other nations did.

First, you are wrong. There is a difference between Mongols running around in the 13th century and Japanese hacking off heads and piling up babies in the 20th.

Unless you face that fact, you'll continue to demonstrate the unfortunately implicit argument that we are no more 'civil' than we were centuries ago, thus the "Kill first" philosophy will continue with us to an uncertain end.

Do I think Civ3 is the place to teach people the truth about history and our sad repetition, indeed PRAISE, of vile acts? No, I don't.

Work a bit harder on your research. Not all nations shed blood in the same way and for the same reasons. To argue such is to display a dangerous ignorance.

[Saint Marcus]

First, you are wrong. There is a difference between Mongols running around in the 13th century and Japanese hacking off heads and piling up babies in the 20th.

Work a bit harder on your research. Not all nations shed blood in the same way and for the same reasons. To argue such is to display a dangerous ignorance.

England in the Boer War
Germany in World War 2
Russia under Stalin
Americans in Vietnam
Dutch in Indonesia

[yin26]

That doesn't address what I said.

[Saint Marcus]

That list describes some horrible acts those civs have commited in the not so distant past. In what way is that different from Japan?

Also, Japan isn't included just because of WW2, but also because of their economy, their rapid catch-up with the west in the late 19th/early 20th century, their sumurai with their code of honor.

[yin26]

In what way is that different from Japan?

I'll let you do the research since I already have. Please report back what you find. I am not being confrontational. I think it would be an amazing study. Certainly in the case of the Nazi's, it's quite similar.

Code of Honor

You are now touching on my point. There was a TIME in Japan's history when this was so, but the 20th century continuing with these visits to graves of convicted war criminals tells another story.

I am fully aware that the image of any country will vary widely depending on exactly what moment in history you are looking at, but since Japan's atrocities are still SO recent and still SO ignored and even glorified by Japan (and others here at Apolyton), I would say that there is a 'ugency of the moment' related to discussions of Japan.

I look forward to what you find. If, for example, you can show me 300,000 killed and 20,000 raped by Americans in the Vietnam war...with photos or accounts of dead babies stacked high and severed heads arranged in 'glory,' I will personally thank you for opening my eyes. Yes, I know villages were napalmed, and there is no glorifying that.

Unfortunately I am talking about atrocities of scale and displays of inhumane behavior of the most depraved order. Please show that in the cases you list on the magnitude and depravity of Japan.

Oh, and please also include the "reasons" behind each incident. It seems evident that Japan's "reasons" and the U.S. "reasons" for being in Vietnam were quite a bit different in a way that condemns Japan to a far greater degree. Prove me wrong.