Top 10 real-time searches 2022/1/28, 19:57
It is China, South Korea and the UN that are creating the crisis of democracy.
It is China and South Korea that are trying to divide public opinion in democracies with Nazism.
奈良は緊急事態宣言の発令や重点措置を適用しなくても感染が収束した。これが最大のエビデンスだ。
The source of information is still "Seiji Yoshida.
ＴＢＳが反日的報道をする理由を知っていますか？ 元ＴＢＳ社員の独り言 「うちの局がこんなになってしまった経緯をお話しましょう」
日本の入管法には多くの問題がある等と言う、とんでもない事を視聴者に思いこませようとしている番組だった
Dobbiamo mostrare fermamente la volontà che deve essere consegnata.
今、BSテレビ東京で日経ニュース９を観ていたのだが、呆れ果てた。
日本の入管法は世界一、ゆるい（対象者に優しい）事は、世界の実情を知っている者なら誰でも知っている歴然たる事実である。
日本の入管法が世界一人権に配慮しているからだといえる事も常識だろう。
ところが、この番組は、日本の入管法には多くの問題がある等と言う、とんでもない事を視聴者に思いこませようとしている番組だった。
それに使っているのが青学・法学部の学生だというのも極めて悪質である。
こんな事を、それとは気づかせないような形で、学生達を、自虐史観からの日本国批判、政府批判に誘導していた教授の名前を番組がアナウンスした。
「シン先生」？
検索して見た…申 惠丰（しん へぼん、SHIN Hae Bong）は、日本の国際法学者。博士(法学)。青山学院大学法学部法学科教授。国際人権法学会事務局長を経て同第10期理事長。
彼女が、いわゆる人権派弁護士等の一派である事は論を俟たないだろう。
加えて、青学には、ハーバードのラムゼイ教授の全く正しい本物の論文に対して排斥運動を繰り広げた、とんでもない教授までいるのである。
２週間のうちに、シェパード、スタンレー、茶谷さやか（シンンガポール国立大学助教授）、チェルシー・センディー（青山学院大学教授）－全員、人文学部の日本研究者―が、学術誌に対して私の論文掲載撤回を求める30頁にわたる要望書を共同提出した。
こういうことが分かっていて、親たちは、青学法学部に我が子を送っているのか？
一体、日本の大学って、どうなっているのだ！学者達とメディアは、一体、どこまで左翼に侵食されているのだ！
I've already mentioned that I subscribe to Shukan Shincho for the sake of reading the columns by Masayuki Takayama and Ms. Yoshiko Sakurai at the end of the magazine.
But last night, while casually reading another page, I found the following article.
It is a critical article.
This article is critical because it shows that the problems that democratic societies are facing today, or what is being touted as a crisis of democracy and the division of public opinion within the country (especially in the United States), is since the Nazi nations of China and South Korea continue to practice Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education and that the Nazis who grew up with this education are the ones who are making the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations their primary targets.
It is because it proves that it is anti-Japanese propaganda being carried out by the Nazi states of China and South Korea, which continue to carry out Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education, and by the Nazis who grew up with this education, using the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations as their main stage.
The UN.
SDGs, global warming, etc., are a Chinese strategy.
If you have time to tout and preach a trick, you should immediately advise China and South Korea to abolish Nazism education.
The UN's continued neglect of China and South Korea to this day has led to a crisis of democracy and has encouraged the tyranny of totalitarian states.
It is no exaggeration to say that the United Nations is now entirely dominated by China.
It is no exaggeration to say that the UN, which has brought about such a state of affairs, is the main culprit in destabilizing democracy.
This article is a must-read for the Japanese people and people worldwide.
The Japanese people and everyone else in the world must remember that the people who call themselves scholars in the following article are the enemies of intelligence, freedom, and humanity.
The Japanese people must never forget the name of the person this article is the first time they have seen, Sayaka Chatani, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore.
It is hard to believe that such a person is a university professor in the first place.
The following is an exclusive memoir by weekly Shincho.
The Harvard Professor Who was turned into an 'ostracism' Reveals
The abnormal bashing of his "comfort women = professional prostitutes" thesis
Japanese Researchers Move to 'Exclude' Instead of 'Disprove
Korean scholar's "thesis withdrawal" prominent movement
The lie of the Asahi Shimbun "Seiji Yoshida" that goes through overseas
The fact that the Japanese military did not coerce prostitution
Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer
The article "Prostitution Contracts in the Pacific War," published at the end of 2020, was heavily denounced in South Korea and the United States because it rejected the theory that comfort women were sex slaves.
However, this was a politically motivated movement that trampled on academic freedom.
One year has passed since the uproar, and the whole story of the personal attack is so terrible.
My articles and books have rarely attracted attention.
I write inconspicuous articles and books read-only by a minimal number of specialists.
The same is true for my paper on comfort women that I published in the second half of 2020, which no one paid much attention to except for one economic website that lightly commented on it.
However, a year ago, in late January 2021, the Sankei Shimbun published an excellent paper summary.
It appeared on the Sankei Shimbun website on Thursday, January 28, and in the paper on Sunday.
On Monday, February 1, I woke up, as usual, breakfasted, drank coffee, and checked my email.
I began to receive harassing hate mail slandering me.
The Korean media had picked up the Sankei article on my paper.
I received 77 hate emails on Monday, all of which were hostile, anti-Japanese, and mostly insane.
Every day after that, I received more hate mail, and it continued for two months.
The hate mail prompted me to check the website of The International Review of Law & Economics, which published my article, and found that the publisher, Elsevier, had posted a tweet about the report, saying It turns out that there have been 1,200 tweets about my paper.
It is bizarre.
No one had ever tweeted about my paper before, not even once.
I didn't even know how to read the tweets.
With the help of my son, I registered a Twitter account and was taught the search function.
It turned out that a group of American academics had read the Korean media article and were outraged.
The first one seemed to be Hannah Shepard, a young scholar currently teaching Japanese history at Yale University.
She tweeted on Monday morning, "I'm completely speechless where to begin. An hour later, she tweeted, "I could ignore this article, but it's on the front page of the Korean media, with the name of his organization on it. But with his name on the front page of the Korean media, can I ignore it? Can I ignore it?"
Among the top tweeters were Amy Stanley (who teaches Japanese history at Northwestern University) and David Ambaras (a professor at North Carolina State University), who tweeted back and forth throughout the day. Paula Curtis, a young scholar, joined them.
By Tuesday, the tweeters had concluded that they should stage a protest to demand the paper's retraction.
In fact, Stanley and Shepherd had each asked the journal's publisher to retract the article on Monday.
Shepherd had posted her request on Twitter so that others could refer to it.
She added, "Ramseyer's article simply repeats the views of Japan's far-right denialists in an echo-chamber fashion in an academic journal.
My critics seemed to be enjoying the festivities on Twitter.
Curtis tweeted, "Hey, at least five women say they've sent a letter of request to the editor about this terrible paper by Ramseyer.
Curtis tweeted, "How many male academics have protested? She continued.
Within two weeks, Shepherd, Stanley, Sayaka Chatani (assistant professor at Singapore National University), and Chelsea Sendy (professor at Aoyama Gakuin University) - all Japanese studies scholars in the School of Humanities - had sent a 30-page letter to the journal demanding a retraction of my article. Within a week, my colleagues at Harvard University, Andrew Gordon, a Japanese historian, and Carter Eckert, a Korean historian, submitted a letter to the journal's publisher asking for a retraction.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed they had not seen me or the actual contract.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed I had not seen the actual contract.
They both accused me of gross academic dishonesty.
Pressure on my organization
At Harvard Law School, Jinny Seok Ji-young, a colleague of mine, submitted a critical article to The New Yorker (apparently a popular magazine among the intelligentsia).
Although she had little knowledge of Japanese or Korean history, she contacted some of my critics (Ambaras and Gordon, for example) and repeated their arguments.
As a matter of fact, there were only three mistakes in my 30+ page paper, excluding page numbers and the like; none of them were severe mistakes.
Gordon and Eckert claim that I have not seen the actual contracts, but there are numerous references to Korean and Japanese comfort women working under contract.
Almost every Japanese book on the subject mentions contracts.
Japanese government documents, memoirs, newspaper advertisements, diaries, and others also contain descriptions of contracts.
Concurrently, Michael Choi, a Korean-American political scientist at UCLA, organized a petition drive among political scientists and economists to have my article withdrawn from publication, eventually gathering over 3,000 signatures.
Many of the signatures were in Korean surnames.
I don't think many of those who signed the petition have a deep knowledge of Japanese or Korean history.
It came as a shock to me that a scholar would sign a petition to have a paper on a subject he is ignorant of withdrawn from publication.
But in fact, many academics did sign the petition.
American professors began the old-fashioned and very ruthless ostracism.
Harvard University has a Japanese Studies Program (called the Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies, after the former ambassador to Japan and Harvard professor), of which I am a member.
On the Institute's website, other professors of Japanese studies immediately posted the criticisms of Gordon and the five scholars, which continued for nearly six months.
I am on the boards of several academic groups, and one of my critics pressured the board to convene a special committee to consider removing me from the board.
The critics also attacked my editor.
Several publishers were planning to publish my other papers. All of them had nothing to do with comfort women.
Nevertheless, my critics urged the editors to cancel the articles.
Humanities Department with Many Far-Leftists
The series of developments was bizarre.
The theory that the Japanese military forced Korean women to become comfort women is not a reasonable one.
Every military base has brothels in the vicinity, and some prostitutes are willing to work there.
Many women seek out these jobs for the money.
In such a situation, did the Japanese military forcibly gather Korean women (who had Japanese nationality, to begin with) and force them to work? Unfortunately, such a story does not make sense.
However, the controversy over the comfort stations is deeply related to "politics. It should be evident to readers of this magazine that politics is behind the attacks from South Korea.
Voters' support for the current South Korean government is based on strong anti-Japanese sentiment and criticism of Japan.
The Japanese military's theory forced Korean women to go to comfort stations forms part of the voter support.
This theory helps the current administration maintain its power, and the attacks on me come from the dynamics of the election.
South Korea is a democracy, but it is a democracy limited to the extent that it does not dispute and debate the comfort women issue.
Scholars who deny forced entrainment may be forced out of college. Sometimes it even develops into a criminal procedure.
It seems that scholars like Michael Che want to bring such unacceptable behavior to American universities.
It may be difficult for readers of this journal to understand the political background of Japanese studies scholars in the United States, such as Gordon, Stanley, Ambaras, and the other five.
A hint of this can be found in a recent article Curtis wrote.
According to her, "privilege, institutions, and networks of the haves contribute to the abuse of power by some groups; usually, white males in elite organizations in senior positions,"
And researchers like her are struggling to "liberate and reform" universities from "senior white men" like me.
Curtis's comment reflects the strange political situation in contemporary American universities' humanities departments.
Most humanities departments are uniformly center-left, and many are far left.
The extreme nationalist Korean narrative about comfort women seems to fit this political thinking.
Anyway, when the comfort women issue comes up, critics like Stanley and Ambaras seem to censor it decisively and thoroughly.
In mid-November 2021, a prominent South Korean economist, Lee Woo-Yeon, wrote an article in the diplomatic journal The Diplomat.
He, like me, disagreed with the theory that the Korean comfort women were sex slaves.
Ambaras posted a screenshot of the article on Twitter, declaring, "The comfort women deniers are hideous," and asking, "Why would The Diplomat publish this piece of garbage? He continued.
Stanley retweeted the contribution, and Chaya joined in the writing.
Within a few hours, Mitchie Nunn, a reporter from The Diplomat, replied, "We're responding. I'm sorry," he replied, and shortly after, "We have removed the contribution. I am truly sorry for such an unpleasant and unacceptable mistake," he wrote.
In case that apology wasn't enough, he added, "We sincerely apologize for the way we posted this contributed text on our website. The text has been removed," The text has been removed," he added to apologize.
But Ambaras didn't stop there. Singh wrote back, "The editors should tell the public why they allowed this to be published in the first place and what measures they will take to prevent similar mistakes in the future."
Singh replied, "I will make a statement on our official account. But, again, I have no excuse. As the chief reporter for Korea and North Korea, I will be in closer contact with the editors and will do my best to review all outside contributions.
Ambaras said, "Thank you. We all have a mountain of work to do in dealing with negativity, don't we?
Singh continued to apologize and said, "Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have contacted me directly to point out this issue and ensure that it is addressed promptly by The Diplomat and me. Please continue to review our communications as much as possible and provide us with your insights. Thank you," he added.
The source of information is still "Seiji Yoshida.
What actually happened in Korea is, of course, very simple.
To minimize venereal disease, the Japanese government expanded the previously existing domestic prostitution licensing system to include foreign countries.
The military did not need to force women into prostitution.
Prostitution was a well-paying job for the poorest women, and many poor women in pre-war Japan and Korea competed for this job.
The military could not afford to use soldiers to force prostitution on unwilling women in the first place. After all, the soldiers were fighting a war.
However, about 40 years after the war, a man named Seiji Yoshida published a book titled "My War Crimes," in which he wrote that he and his soldiers went to Korea and "hunted women" to be sent to comfort stations.
As soon as the book was published, elderly Korean women began to claim that they had been forcibly taken by Japanese soldiers and started demanding money and apologies from the Japanese government.
The women, who had previously said that they had entered the workforce of their own volition, now began to claim (after the publication of Yoshida's book) that they had been forced into the workforce by Japanese soldiers.
Women who used to say that their parents pressured them to take jobs now claim that they were forced to do so by Japanese soldiers.
The same goes for the famous UN criticism of Japan (the Radhika Kumaraswamy Report). In her report, she explicitly cited Yoshida's book.
However, as readers of this magazine already know, Yoshida later confessed that her book was a complete lie.
There is no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no mention of the Japanese government forcing Korean women into prostitution in publications before 1985 in Korea.
And many of the women who have changed their claims live in nursing homes owned by women who were indicted for massive financial fraud.
How much of this history is understood by American scholars is a mystery.
In 2003, Gordon published another book based on an English-language source based on Yoshida's made-up book.
In 2003, however, it was well known in Japan that Yoshida's book was false.
Nevertheless, in the U.S., a professor of Japanese history at Harvard University wrote a book on comfort women in 2003, using Yoshida's book as a source of information.
In Japan, anyone who reads newspapers knows that the women began claiming forced labor shortly after the publication of Yoshida's book.
American researchers, however, make no mention of this book at all.
They quote many women's words but rarely mention that their stories have changed (in some cases, many times).
He also rarely mentions the fact that Yoshida's falsehoods caused the controversy.
What really happened on the Korean peninsula in the 1930s is evident.
The Japanese military did not force Korean women into prostitution, it simply did not happen.
Sometimes, however, the more obviously wrong their claims are, the more scholars will attack them for pointing out the simple truth.
On this subject, American scholars of Japanese history are surprisingly militant.
They have not attempted to disprove my paper.
They asked for an injunction against the publication of the paper itself.
It is Stalinism in academia.
And it does not bode well for the future of Japanese studies in American universities.
I've already mentioned that I subscribe to Shukan Shincho for the sake of reading the columns by Masayuki Takayama and Ms. Yoshiko Sakurai at the end of the magazine.
But last night, while casually reading another page, I found the following article.
It is a critical article.
This article is critical because it shows that the problems that democratic societies are facing today, or what is being touted as a crisis of democracy and the division of public opinion within the country (especially in the United States), is since the Nazi nations of China and South Korea continue to practice Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education and that the Nazis who grew up with this education are the ones who are making the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations their primary targets.
It is because it proves that it is anti-Japanese propaganda being carried out by the Nazi states of China and South Korea, which continue to carry out Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education, and by the Nazis who grew up with this education, using the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations as their main stage.
The UN.
If you don't have time to preach about the SDGs, global warming, etc., which are China's tricks, you must immediately recommend that China and Korea abolish Nazi education.
The UN's continued neglect of China and South Korea to this day has led to a crisis of democracy and has encouraged the tyranny of totalitarian states.
It is no exaggeration to say that the United Nations is now entirely dominated by China.
It is no exaggeration to say that the UN, which has brought about such a state of affairs, is the main culprit in destabilizing democracy.
This article is a must-read for the Japanese people and people worldwide.
The Japanese people and everyone else in the world must remember that the people who call themselves scholars in the following article are the enemies of intelligence, freedom, and humanity.
The Japanese people must never forget the name of the person this article is the first time they have seen, Sayaka Chatani, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore.
It is hard to believe that such a person is a university professor in the first place.
The following is an exclusive memoir by weekly Shincho.
The Harvard Professor Who was turned into an 'ostracism' Reveals
The abnormal bashing of his "comfort women = professional prostitutes" thesis
Japanese Researchers Move to 'Exclude' Instead of 'Disprove
Korean scholar's "thesis withdrawal" prominent movement
The lie of the Asahi Shimbun "Seiji Yoshida" that goes through overseas
The fact that the Japanese military did not coerce prostitution
Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer
The article "Prostitution Contracts in the Pacific War," published at the end of 2020, was heavily denounced in South Korea and the United States because it rejected the theory that comfort women were sex slaves.
However, this was a politically motivated movement that trampled on academic freedom.
One year has passed since the uproar, and the whole story of the personal attack is so terrible.
My articles and books have rarely attracted attention.
I write inconspicuous articles and books read-only by a minimal number of specialists.
The same is true for my paper on comfort women that I published in the second half of 2020, which no one paid much attention to except for one economic website that lightly commented on it.
However, a year ago, in late January 2021, the Sankei Shimbun published an excellent paper summary.
It appeared on the Sankei Shimbun website on Thursday, January 28, and in the paper on Sunday.
On Monday, February 1, I woke up, as usual, breakfasted, drank coffee, and checked my email.
I began to receive harassing hate mail slandering me.
The Korean media had picked up the Sankei article on my paper.
I received 77 hate emails on Monday, all of which were hostile, anti-Japanese, and mostly insane.
Every day after that, I received more hate mail, and it continued for two months.
The hate mail prompted me to check the website of The International Review of Law & Economics, which published my article, and found that the publisher, Elsevier, had posted a tweet about the report, saying It turns out that there have been 1,200 tweets about my paper.
It is bizarre.
No one had ever tweeted about my paper before, not even once.
I didn't even know how to read the tweets.
With the help of my son, I registered a Twitter account and was taught the search function.
It turned out that a group of American academics had read the Korean media article and were outraged.
The first one seemed to be Hannah Shepard, a young scholar currently teaching Japanese history at Yale University.
She tweeted on Monday morning, "I'm completely speechless where to begin. An hour later, she tweeted, "I could ignore this article, but it's on the front page of the Korean media, with the name of his organization on it. But with his name on the front page of the Korean media, can I ignore it? Can I ignore it?"
Among the top tweeters were Amy Stanley (who teaches Japanese history at Northwestern University) and David Ambaras (a professor at North Carolina State University), who tweeted back and forth throughout the day. Paula Curtis, a young scholar, joined them.
By Tuesday, the tweeters had concluded that they should stage a protest to demand the paper's retraction.
In fact, Stanley and Shepherd had each asked the journal's publisher to retract the article on Monday.
Shepherd had posted her request on Twitter so that others could refer to it.
She added, "Ramseyer's article simply repeats the views of Japan's far-right denialists in an echo-chamber fashion in an academic journal.
My critics seemed to be enjoying the festivities on Twitter.
Curtis tweeted, "Hey, at least five women say they've sent a letter of request to the editor about this terrible paper by Ramseyer.
Curtis tweeted, "How many male academics have protested? She continued.
Within two weeks, Shepherd, Stanley, Sayaka Chatani (assistant professor at Singapore National University), and Chelsea Sendy (professor at Aoyama Gakuin University) - all Japanese studies scholars in the School of Humanities - had sent a 30-page letter to the journal demanding a retraction of my article. Within a week, my colleagues at Harvard University, Andrew Gordon, a Japanese historian, and Carter Eckert, a Korean historian, submitted a letter to the journal's publisher asking for a retraction.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed they had not seen me or the actual contract.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed I had not seen the actual contract.
They both accused me of gross academic dishonesty.
Pressure on my organization
At Harvard Law School, Jinny Seok Ji-young, a colleague of mine, submitted a critical article to The New Yorker (apparently a popular magazine among the intelligentsia).
Although she had little knowledge of Japanese or Korean history, she contacted some of my critics (Ambaras and Gordon, for example) and repeated their arguments.
As a matter of fact, there were only three mistakes in my 30+ page paper, excluding page numbers and the like; none of them were severe mistakes.
Gordon and Eckert claim that I have not seen the actual contracts, but there are numerous references to Korean and Japanese comfort women working under contract.
Almost every Japanese book on the subject mentions contracts.
Japanese government documents, memoirs, newspaper advertisements, diaries, and others also contain descriptions of contracts.
Concurrently, Michael Choi, a Korean-American political scientist at UCLA, organized a petition drive among political scientists and economists to have my article withdrawn from publication, eventually gathering over 3,000 signatures.
Many of the signatures were in Korean surnames.
I don't think many of those who signed the petition have a deep knowledge of Japanese or Korean history.
It came as a shock to me that a scholar would sign a petition to have a paper on a subject he is ignorant of withdrawn from publication.
But in fact, many academics did sign the petition.
American professors began the old-fashioned and very ruthless ostracism.
Harvard University has a Japanese Studies Program (called the Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies, after the former ambassador to Japan and Harvard professor), of which I am a member.
On the Institute's website, other professors of Japanese studies immediately posted the criticisms of Gordon and the five scholars, which continued for nearly six months.
I am on the boards of several academic groups, and one of my critics pressured the board to convene a special committee to consider removing me from the board.
The critics also attacked my editor.
Several publishers were planning to publish my other papers. All of them had nothing to do with comfort women.
Nevertheless, my critics urged the editors to cancel the articles.
Humanities Department with Many Far-Leftists
The series of developments was bizarre.
The theory that the Japanese military forced Korean women to become comfort women is not a reasonable one.
Every military base has brothels in the vicinity, and some prostitutes are willing to work there.
Many women seek out these jobs for the money.
In such a situation, did the Japanese military forcibly gather Korean women (who had Japanese nationality, to begin with) and force them to work? Unfortunately, such a story does not make sense.
However, the controversy over the comfort stations is deeply related to "politics. It should be evident to readers of this magazine that politics is behind the attacks from South Korea.
Voters' support for the current South Korean government is based on strong anti-Japanese sentiment and criticism of Japan.
The Japanese military's theory forced Korean women to go to comfort stations forms part of the voter support.
This theory helps the current administration maintain its power, and the attacks on me come from the dynamics of the election.
South Korea is a democracy, but it is a democracy limited to the extent that it does not dispute and debate the comfort women issue.
Scholars who deny forced entrainment may be forced out of college. Sometimes it even develops into a criminal procedure.
It seems that scholars like Michael Che want to bring such unacceptable behavior to American universities.
It may be difficult for readers of this journal to understand the political background of Japanese studies scholars in the United States, such as Gordon, Stanley, Ambaras, and the other five.
A hint of this can be found in a recent article Curtis wrote.
According to her, "privilege, institutions, and networks of the haves contribute to the abuse of power by some groups; usually, white males in elite organizations in senior positions,"
And researchers like her are struggling to "liberate and reform" universities from "senior white men" like me.
Curtis's comment reflects the strange political situation in contemporary American universities' humanities departments.
Most humanities departments are uniformly center-left, and many are far left.
The extreme nationalist Korean narrative about comfort women seems to fit this political thinking.
Anyway, when the comfort women issue comes up, critics like Stanley and Ambaras seem to censor it decisively and thoroughly.
In mid-November 2021, a prominent South Korean economist, Lee Woo-Yeon, wrote an article in the diplomatic journal The Diplomat.
He, like me, disagreed with the theory that the Korean comfort women were sex slaves.
Ambaras posted a screenshot of the article on Twitter, declaring, "The comfort women deniers are hideous," and asking, "Why would The Diplomat publish this piece of garbage? He continued.
Stanley retweeted the contribution, and Chaya joined in the writing.
Within a few hours, Mitchie Nunn, a reporter from The Diplomat, replied, "We're responding. I'm sorry," he replied, and shortly after, "We have removed the contribution. I am truly sorry for such an unpleasant and unacceptable mistake," he wrote.
In case that apology wasn't enough, he added, "We sincerely apologize for the way we posted this contributed text on our website. The text has been removed," The text has been removed," he added to apologize.
But Ambaras didn't stop there. Singh wrote back, "The editors should tell the public why they allowed this to be published in the first place and what measures they will take to prevent similar mistakes in the future."
Singh replied, "I will make a statement on our official account. But, again, I have no excuse. As the chief reporter for Korea and North Korea, I will be in closer contact with the editors and will do my best to review all outside contributions.
Ambaras said, "Thank you. We all have a mountain of work to do in dealing with negativity, don't we?
Singh continued to apologize and said, "Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have contacted me directly to point out this issue and ensure that it is addressed promptly by The Diplomat and me. Please continue to review our communications as much as possible and provide us with your insights. Thank you," he added.
The source of information is still "Seiji Yoshida.
What actually happened in Korea is, of course, very simple.
To minimize venereal disease, the Japanese government expanded the previously existing domestic prostitution licensing system to include foreign countries.
The military did not need to force women into prostitution.
Prostitution was a well-paying job for the poorest women, and many poor women in pre-war Japan and Korea competed for this job.
The military could not afford to use soldiers to force prostitution on unwilling women in the first place. After all, the soldiers were fighting a war.
However, about 40 years after the war, a man named Seiji Yoshida published a book titled "My War Crimes," in which he wrote that he and his soldiers went to Korea and "hunted women" to be sent to comfort stations.
As soon as the book was published, elderly Korean women began to claim that they had been forcibly taken by Japanese soldiers and started demanding money and apologies from the Japanese government.
The women, who had previously said that they had entered the workforce of their own volition, now began to claim (after the publication of Yoshida's book) that they had been forced into the workforce by Japanese soldiers.
Women who used to say that their parents pressured them to take jobs now claim that they were forced to do so by Japanese soldiers.
The same goes for the famous UN criticism of Japan (the Radhika Kumaraswamy Report). In her report, she explicitly cited Yoshida's book.
However, as readers of this magazine already know, Yoshida later confessed that her book was a complete lie.
There is no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no mention of the Japanese government forcing Korean women into prostitution in publications before 1985 in Korea.
And many of the women who have changed their claims live in nursing homes owned by women who were indicted for massive financial fraud.
How much of this history is understood by American scholars is a mystery.
In 2003, Gordon published another book based on an English-language source based on Yoshida's made-up book.
In 2003, however, it was well known in Japan that Yoshida's book was false.
Nevertheless, in the U.S., a professor of Japanese history at Harvard University wrote a book on comfort women in 2003, using Yoshida's book as a source of information.
In Japan, anyone who reads newspapers knows that the women began claiming forced labor shortly after the publication of Yoshida's book.
American researchers, however, make no mention of this book at all.
They quote many women's words but rarely mention that their stories have changed (in some cases, many times).
He also rarely mentions the fact that Yoshida's falsehoods caused the controversy.
What really happened on the Korean peninsula in the 1930s is evident.
The Japanese military did not force Korean women into prostitution, it simply did not happen.
Sometimes, however, the more obviously wrong their claims are, the more scholars will attack them for pointing out the simple truth.
On this subject, American scholars of Japanese history are surprisingly militant.
They have not attempted to disprove my paper.
They asked for an injunction against the publication of the paper itself.
It is Stalinism in academia.
And it does not bode well for the future of Japanese studies in American universities.
Humanities Department with Many Far-Leftists
The source of information is still "Seiji Yoshida.
The Harvard Professor Who was turned into an 'ostracism' Reveals
Le professeur de Harvard qui a été transformé en "ostracisme" révèle
Lo rivela il professore di Harvard che è stato trasformato in un "ostracismo".
奈良は緊急事態宣言の発令や重点措置を適用しなくても感染が収束した。これが最大のエビデンスだ。
El profesor de Harvard que fue convertido en un 'ostracismo' revela
O professor de Harvard que foi transformado em 'ostracismo' revela
The Harvard Professor Who was turned into an 'ostracism' Reveals
「反証」ではなく「排斥」に動いた日本研究者たち… 韓国系学者の「論文撤回」著名運動… 海外でまかり通る朝日新聞「吉田清治」の嘘
民主主義を危機に晒しているのは…反日教育と言う名のナチズムを行い続けている中国と韓国…この教育で育ったナチスト達
Humanities Department with Many Far-Leftists
ハンナ・シェパード、エイミー・スタンレー、デイビッド・アンバラス、ポーラ・カーティス、茶谷さやか、チェルシー・センディー
The source of information is still "Seiji Yoshida.
Lo rivela il professore di Harvard che è stato trasformato in un "ostracismo".
Top 50 searches for the past week 2022/1/28
Le professeur de Harvard qui a été transformé en "ostracisme" révèle
El profesor de Harvard que fue convertido en un 'ostracismo' revela
以下は今しがた発見した石平さんのリツィートからである。
https://www.sankei.com/article/20220127-47XUCMEF3JPHFGUXT4B2LH2O7U/
蔓延防止に効果なし、「同調圧力」に屈せぬ 奈良県知事・荒井正吾氏
《新型コロナウイルスの新変異株「オミクロン株」による感染急拡大が続く中、蔓延(まんえん)防止等重点措置は「効果がない」と主張し、適用要請はしない考えだ》
感染「第４波」「第５波」の検証から、飲食店の営業時間短縮と酒類の販売停止が感染者数の減少につながっていないと判断した。
医療が逼迫(ひっぱく)するから飲食店を時短するというロジック（論理）が分からない。
奈良県は大阪府の１０分の１の感染規模だが、これまで飲食店に時短要請をしなくても感染は収束した。
専門家は重点措置や緊急事態宣言で感染者数を抑え込んだと主張するかもしれないが、（ウイルスを）抑え込んだのではなく、（感染者数が自然に）下がってしまったという方が正確だ。
どうして感染者数が増えるのか、減るのか。
国は検証せず、根拠を出さない。
重点措置は効果がない割に経済への打撃が大きいと考える。
敵のいないところに弾を撃つようなものだ。
《全国では重点措置の適用が広がっている》
同じ戦い方をしろよ、という「同調圧力」の空気がある。
同調すべきという日本の空気全体については冷静に判断しないといけない。
奈良は追随しない。
第５波のときは、奈良にも緊急事態宣言発令を要請しろといわれたが、効果がないのに経済への打撃が大きいことはしたくなかったので要請しなかった。
「（要請を）出せ」という圧力を受けるのは政治家としては大変だが、緊急事態宣言の連発より、医療体制の拡充が大事だ。
（飲食店の）時短が病床数に関係するとは思えない。
感染症対策で最も必要なことはエビデンス（証拠）だ。
日常生活との両立を図る中で効果が少ないものは採用しない。
その際に求められるのが、複数の作戦の中で何が効率がいいのか、どれが効果があるのかを検証する「オペレーションズ・リサーチ」の発想だ。
これまでの感染対策で、やった場合とやらなかった場合を比較して評価する。薬の効果を確かめる実験でもそう。
この観点でいうと、奈良は緊急事態宣言の発令や重点措置を適用しなくても感染が収束した。これが最大のエビデンスだ。
国はエビデンスの材料になる数字を一番持っている。
これをすると感染リスクが何％増える、これをすると何％減るということを検証してほしい。
新型コロナとの戦いに勝つにはなにより情報分析。
現場として納得して対策に取り組めるよう説得力のあるエビデンスやロジックを国が中心となって示すべきだ。
«奈良県では今後も重点措置などに頼らず、地道に感染対策を続ける»
日本人は自然災害には誇らしいほど冷静だが、感染症にはパニックになる傾向がある。
今は感染予防の４原則、マスク着用▽距離をとる▽換気▽消毒―を徹底することが大切で、辛抱強く、用心して暮らしてほしい。
感染の波は高くなったり低くなったりする。
行政としては重症者と死亡者を出さないことに最大の力を入れ、医療体制を維持していく。
（聞き手 田中一毅）
あらい・しょうご 東京大法学部卒。昭和４３年に旧運輸省（現国土交通省）に入省。観光部長や自動車交通局長、海上保安庁長官を経て平成１３年に参院選奈良選挙区で初当選し、外務大臣政務官などを歴任した。１９年、奈良県知事選に初当選し現在４期目。
以下は今しがた発見した石平さんのリツィートからである。
https://www.sankei.com/article/20220127-47XUCMEF3JPHFGUXT4B2LH2O7U/
蔓延防止に効果なし、「同調圧力」に屈せぬ 奈良県知事・荒井正吾氏
《新型コロナウイルスの新変異株「オミクロン株」による感染急拡大が続く中、蔓延(まんえん)防止等重点措置は「効果がない」と主張し、適用要請はしない考えだ》
感染「第４波」「第５波」の検証から、飲食店の営業時間短縮と酒類の販売停止が感染者数の減少につながっていないと判断した。
医療が逼迫(ひっぱく)するから飲食店を時短するというロジック（論理）が分からない。
奈良県は大阪府の１０分の１の感染規模だが、これまで飲食店に時短要請をしなくても感染は収束した。
専門家は重点措置や緊急事態宣言で感染者数を抑え込んだと主張するかもしれないが、（ウイルスを）抑え込んだのではなく、（感染者数が自然に）下がってしまったという方が正確だ。
どうして感染者数が増えるのか、減るのか。
国は検証せず、根拠を出さない。
重点措置は効果がない割に経済への打撃が大きいと考える。
敵のいないところに弾を撃つようなものだ。
《全国では重点措置の適用が広がっている》
同じ戦い方をしろよ、という「同調圧力」の空気がある。
同調すべきという日本の空気全体については冷静に判断しないといけない。
奈良は追随しない。
第５波のときは、奈良にも緊急事態宣言発令を要請しろといわれたが、効果がないのに経済への打撃が大きいことはしたくなかったので要請しなかった。
「（要請を）出せ」という圧力を受けるのは政治家としては大変だが、緊急事態宣言の連発より、医療体制の拡充が大事だ。
（飲食店の）時短が病床数に関係するとは思えない。
感染症対策で最も必要なことはエビデンス（証拠）だ。
日常生活との両立を図る中で効果が少ないものは採用しない。
その際に求められるのが、複数の作戦の中で何が効率がいいのか、どれが効果があるのかを検証する「オペレーションズ・リサーチ」の発想だ。
これまでの感染対策で、やった場合とやらなかった場合を比較して評価する。薬の効果を確かめる実験でもそう。
この観点でいうと、奈良は緊急事態宣言の発令や重点措置を適用しなくても感染が収束した。これが最大のエビデンスだ。
国はエビデンスの材料になる数字を一番持っている。
これをすると感染リスクが何％増える、これをすると何％減るということを検証してほしい。
新型コロナとの戦いに勝つにはなにより情報分析。
現場として納得して対策に取り組めるよう説得力のあるエビデンスやロジックを国が中心となって示すべきだ。
«奈良県では今後も重点措置などに頼らず、地道に感染対策を続ける»
日本人は自然災害には誇らしいほど冷静だが、感染症にはパニックになる傾向がある。
今は感染予防の４原則、マスク着用▽距離をとる▽換気▽消毒―を徹底することが大切で、辛抱強く、用心して暮らしてほしい。
感染の波は高くなったり低くなったりする。
行政としては重症者と死亡者を出さないことに最大の力を入れ、医療体制を維持していく。
（聞き手 田中一毅）
あらい・しょうご 東京大法学部卒。昭和４３年に旧運輸省（現国土交通省）に入省。観光部長や自動車交通局長、海上保安庁長官を経て平成１３年に参院選奈良選挙区で初当選し、外務大臣政務官などを歴任した。１９年、奈良県知事選に初当選し現在４期目。
以下は今しがた発見した竹内久美子さんのツイートからである。
読者は、皆、大笑いするであろう。
@takeuchikumiffy
海乱鬼さんが三浦文法を駆使出来ている。
それでも内容がよくわかるところがすごい。
引用ツイート
海乱鬼
@nipponkairagi
三浦瑠璃は、何かを語る時精神的自認性を伴った言説に「いとをかし」をスパイスとして加味する為、本質的かつ簡潔な伝達に難を生じている嫌いがある。
それは潜在的なバイアスを覆い隠す、リベラル的シンパシーの虚飾であり、聡明さをアピールするつもりが、ただの奇怪な駄文を構成しているだけなのだ。
I've already mentioned that I subscribe to Shukan Shincho for the sake of reading the columns by Masayuki Takayama and Ms. Yoshiko Sakurai at the end of the magazine.
But last night, while casually reading another page, I found the following article.
It is a critical article.
This article is critical because it shows that the problems that democratic societies are facing today, or what is being touted as a crisis of democracy and the division of public opinion within the country (especially in the United States), is since the Nazi nations of China and South Korea continue to practice Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education and that the Nazis who grew up with this education are the ones who are making the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations their primary targets.
It is because it proves that it is anti-Japanese propaganda being carried out by the Nazi states of China and South Korea, which continue to carry out Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education, and by the Nazis who grew up with this education, using the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations as their main stage.
The UN.
If you don't have time to preach about the SDGs, global warming, etc., which are China's tricks, you must immediately recommend that China and Korea abolish Nazi education.
The UN's continued neglect of China and South Korea to this day has led to a crisis of democracy and has encouraged the tyranny of totalitarian states.
It is no exaggeration to say that the United Nations is now entirely dominated by China.
It is no exaggeration to say that the UN, which has brought about such a state of affairs, is the main culprit in destabilizing democracy.
This article is a must-read for the Japanese people and people worldwide.
The Japanese people and everyone else in the world must remember that the people who call themselves scholars in the following article are the enemies of intelligence, freedom, and humanity.
The Japanese people must never forget the name of the person this article is the first time they have seen, Sayaka Chatani, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore.
It is hard to believe that such a person is a university professor in the first place.
The following is an exclusive memoir by weekly Shincho.
The Harvard Professor Who was turned into an 'ostracism' Reveals
The abnormal bashing of his "comfort women = professional prostitutes" thesis
Japanese Researchers Move to 'Exclude' Instead of 'Disprove
Korean scholar's "thesis withdrawal" prominent movement
The lie of the Asahi Shimbun "Seiji Yoshida" that goes through overseas
The fact that the Japanese military did not coerce prostitution
Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer
The article "Prostitution Contracts in the Pacific War," published at the end of 2020, was heavily denounced in South Korea and the United States because it rejected the theory that comfort women were sex slaves.
However, this was a politically motivated movement that trampled on academic freedom.
One year has passed since the uproar, and the whole story of the personal attack is so terrible.
My articles and books have rarely attracted attention.
I write inconspicuous articles and books read-only by a minimal number of specialists.
The same is true for my paper on comfort women that I published in the second half of 2020, which no one paid much attention to except for one economic website that lightly commented on it.
However, a year ago, in late January 2021, the Sankei Shimbun published an excellent paper summary.
It appeared on the Sankei Shimbun website on Thursday, January 28, and in the paper on Sunday.
On Monday, February 1, I woke up, as usual, breakfasted, drank coffee, and checked my email.
I began to receive harassing hate mail slandering me.
The Korean media had picked up the Sankei article on my paper.
I received 77 hate emails on Monday, all of which were hostile, anti-Japanese, and mostly insane.
Every day after that, I received more hate mail, and it continued for two months.
The hate mail prompted me to check the website of The International Review of Law & Economics, which published my article, and found that the publisher, Elsevier, had posted a tweet about the report, saying It turns out that there have been 1,200 tweets about my paper.
It is bizarre.
No one had ever tweeted about my paper before, not even once.
I didn't even know how to read the tweets.
With the help of my son, I registered a Twitter account and was taught the search function.
It turned out that a group of American academics had read the Korean media article and were outraged.
The first one seemed to be Hannah Shepard, a young scholar currently teaching Japanese history at Yale University.
She tweeted on Monday morning, "I'm completely speechless where to begin. An hour later, she tweeted, "I could ignore this article, but it's on the front page of the Korean media, with the name of his organization on it. But with his name on the front page of the Korean media, can I ignore it? Can I ignore it?"
Among the top tweeters were Amy Stanley (who teaches Japanese history at Northwestern University) and David Ambaras (a professor at North Carolina State University), who tweeted back and forth throughout the day. Paula Curtis, a young scholar, joined them.
By Tuesday, the tweeters had concluded that they should stage a protest to demand the paper's retraction.
In fact, Stanley and Shepherd had each asked the journal's publisher to retract the article on Monday.
Shepherd had posted her request on Twitter so that others could refer to it.
She added, "Ramseyer's article simply repeats the views of Japan's far-right denialists in an echo-chamber fashion in an academic journal.
My critics seemed to be enjoying the festivities on Twitter.
Curtis tweeted, "Hey, at least five women say they've sent a letter of request to the editor about this terrible paper by Ramseyer.
Curtis tweeted, "How many male academics have protested? She continued.
Within two weeks, Shepherd, Stanley, Sayaka Chatani (assistant professor at Singapore National University), and Chelsea Sendy (professor at Aoyama Gakuin University) - all Japanese studies scholars in the School of Humanities - had sent a 30-page letter to the journal demanding a retraction of my article. Within a week, my colleagues at Harvard University, Andrew Gordon, a Japanese historian, and Carter Eckert, a Korean historian, submitted a letter to the journal's publisher asking for a retraction.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed they had not seen me or the actual contract.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed I had not seen the actual contract.
They both accused me of gross academic dishonesty.
Pressure on my organization
At Harvard Law School, Jinny Seok Ji-young, a colleague of mine, submitted a critical article to The New Yorker (apparently a popular magazine among the intelligentsia).
Although she had little knowledge of Japanese or Korean history, she contacted some of my critics (Ambaras and Gordon, for example) and repeated their arguments.
As a matter of fact, there were only three mistakes in my 30+ page paper, excluding page numbers and the like; none of them were severe mistakes.
Gordon and Eckert claim that I have not seen the actual contracts, but there are numerous references to Korean and Japanese comfort women working under contract.
Almost every Japanese book on the subject mentions contracts.
Japanese government documents, memoirs, newspaper advertisements, diaries, and others also contain descriptions of contracts.
Concurrently, Michael Choi, a Korean-American political scientist at UCLA, organized a petition drive among political scientists and economists to have my article withdrawn from publication, eventually gathering over 3,000 signatures.
Many of the signatures were in Korean surnames.
I don't think many of those who signed the petition have a deep knowledge of Japanese or Korean history.
It came as a shock to me that a scholar would sign a petition to have a paper on a subject he is ignorant of withdrawn from publication.
But in fact, many academics did sign the petition.
American professors began the old-fashioned and very ruthless ostracism.
Harvard University has a Japanese Studies Program (called the Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies, after the former ambassador to Japan and Harvard professor), of which I am a member.
On the Institute's website, other professors of Japanese studies immediately posted the criticisms of Gordon and the five scholars, which continued for nearly six months.
I am on the boards of several academic groups, and one of my critics pressured the board to convene a special committee to consider removing me from the board.
The critics also attacked my editor.
Several publishers were planning to publish my other papers. All of them had nothing to do with comfort women.
Nevertheless, my critics urged the editors to cancel the articles.
Humanities Department with Many Far-Leftists
The series of developments was bizarre.
The theory that the Japanese military forced Korean women to become comfort women is not a reasonable one.
Every military base has brothels in the vicinity, and some prostitutes are willing to work there.
Many women seek out these jobs for the money.
In such a situation, did the Japanese military forcibly gather Korean women (who had Japanese nationality, to begin with) and force them to work? Unfortunately, such a story does not make sense.
However, the controversy over the comfort stations is deeply related to "politics. It should be evident to readers of this magazine that politics is behind the attacks from South Korea.
Voters' support for the current South Korean government is based on strong anti-Japanese sentiment and criticism of Japan.
The Japanese military's theory forced Korean women to go to comfort stations forms part of the voter support.
This theory helps the current administration maintain its power, and the attacks on me come from the dynamics of the election.
South Korea is a democracy, but it is a democracy limited to the extent that it does not dispute and debate the comfort women issue.
Scholars who deny forced entrainment may be forced out of college. Sometimes it even develops into a criminal procedure.
It seems that scholars like Michael Che want to bring such unacceptable behavior to American universities.
It may be difficult for readers of this journal to understand the political background of Japanese studies scholars in the United States, such as Gordon, Stanley, Ambaras, and the other five.
A hint of this can be found in a recent article Curtis wrote.
According to her, "privilege, institutions, and networks of the haves contribute to the abuse of power by some groups; usually, white males in elite organizations in senior positions,"
And researchers like her are struggling to "liberate and reform" universities from "senior white men" like me.
Curtis's comment reflects the strange political situation in contemporary American universities' humanities departments.
Most humanities departments are uniformly center-left, and many are far left.
The extreme nationalist Korean narrative about comfort women seems to fit this political thinking.
Anyway, when the comfort women issue comes up, critics like Stanley and Ambaras seem to censor it decisively and thoroughly.
In mid-November 2021, a prominent South Korean economist, Lee Woo-Yeon, wrote an article in the diplomatic journal The Diplomat.
He, like me, disagreed with the theory that the Korean comfort women were sex slaves.
Ambaras posted a screenshot of the article on Twitter, declaring, "The comfort women deniers are hideous," and asking, "Why would The Diplomat publish this piece of garbage? He continued.
Stanley retweeted the contribution, and Chaya joined in the writing.
Within a few hours, Mitchie Nunn, a reporter from The Diplomat, replied, "We're responding. I'm sorry," he replied, and shortly after, "We have removed the contribution. I am truly sorry for such an unpleasant and unacceptable mistake," he wrote.
In case that apology wasn't enough, he added, "We sincerely apologize for the way we posted this contributed text on our website. The text has been removed," The text has been removed," he added to apologize.
But Ambaras didn't stop there. Singh wrote back, "The editors should tell the public why they allowed this to be published in the first place and what measures they will take to prevent similar mistakes in the future."
Singh replied, "I will make a statement on our official account. But, again, I have no excuse. As the chief reporter for Korea and North Korea, I will be in closer contact with the editors and will do my best to review all outside contributions.
Ambaras said, "Thank you. We all have a mountain of work to do in dealing with negativity, don't we?
Singh continued to apologize and said, "Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have contacted me directly to point out this issue and ensure that it is addressed promptly by The Diplomat and me. Please continue to review our communications as much as possible and provide us with your insights. Thank you," he added.
The source of information is still "Seiji Yoshida.
What actually happened in Korea is, of course, very simple.
To minimize venereal disease, the Japanese government expanded the previously existing domestic prostitution licensing system to include foreign countries.
The military did not need to force women into prostitution.
Prostitution was a well-paying job for the poorest women, and many poor women in pre-war Japan and Korea competed for this job.
The military could not afford to use soldiers to force prostitution on unwilling women in the first place. After all, the soldiers were fighting a war.
However, about 40 years after the war, a man named Seiji Yoshida published a book titled "My War Crimes," in which he wrote that he and his soldiers went to Korea and "hunted women" to be sent to comfort stations.
As soon as the book was published, elderly Korean women began to claim that they had been forcibly taken by Japanese soldiers and started demanding money and apologies from the Japanese government.
The women, who had previously said that they had entered the workforce of their own volition, now began to claim (after the publication of Yoshida's book) that they had been forced into the workforce by Japanese soldiers.
Women who used to say that their parents pressured them to take jobs now claim that they were forced to do so by Japanese soldiers.
The same goes for the famous UN criticism of Japan (the Radhika Kumaraswamy Report). In her report, she explicitly cited Yoshida's book.
However, as readers of this magazine already know, Yoshida later confessed that her book was a complete lie.
There is no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no mention of the Japanese government forcing Korean women into prostitution in publications before 1985 in Korea.
And many of the women who have changed their claims live in nursing homes owned by women who were indicted for massive financial fraud.
How much of this history is understood by American scholars is a mystery.
In 2003, Gordon published another book based on an English-language source based on Yoshida's made-up book.
In 2003, however, it was well known in Japan that Yoshida's book was false.
Nevertheless, in the U.S., a professor of Japanese history at Harvard University wrote a book on comfort women in 2003, using Yoshida's book as a source of information.
In Japan, anyone who reads newspapers knows that the women began claiming forced labor shortly after the publication of Yoshida's book.
American researchers, however, make no mention of this book at all.
They quote many women's words but rarely mention that their stories have changed (in some cases, many times).
He also rarely mentions the fact that Yoshida's falsehoods caused the controversy.
What really happened on the Korean peninsula in the 1930s is evident.
The Japanese military did not force Korean women into prostitution, it simply did not happen.
Sometimes, however, the more obviously wrong their claims are, the more scholars will attack them for pointing out the simple truth.
On this subject, American scholars of Japanese history are surprisingly militant.
They have not attempted to disprove my paper.
They asked for an injunction against the publication of the paper itself.
It is Stalinism in academia.
And it does not bode well for the future of Japanese studies in American universities.
I've already mentioned that I subscribe to Shukan Shincho for the sake of reading the columns by Masayuki Takayama and Ms. Yoshiko Sakurai at the end of the magazine.
But last night, while casually reading another page, I found the following article.
It is a critical article.
This article is critical because it shows that the problems that democratic societies are facing today, or what is being touted as a crisis of democracy and the division of public opinion within the country (especially in the United States), is since the Nazi nations of China and South Korea continue to practice Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education and that the Nazis who grew up with this education are the ones who are making the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations their primary targets.
It is because it proves that it is anti-Japanese propaganda being carried out by the Nazi states of China and South Korea, which continue to carry out Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education, and by the Nazis who grew up with this education, using the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations as their main stage.
The UN.
SDGs, global warming, etc., are a Chinese strategy.
If you have time to tout and preach a trick, you should immediately advise China and South Korea to abolish Nazism education.
The UN's continued neglect of China and South Korea to this day has led to a crisis of democracy and has encouraged the tyranny of totalitarian states.
It is no exaggeration to say that the United Nations is now entirely dominated by China.
It is no exaggeration to say that the UN, which has brought about such a state of affairs, is the main culprit in destabilizing democracy.
This article is a must-read for the Japanese people and people worldwide.
The Japanese people and everyone else in the world must remember that the people who call themselves scholars in the following article are the enemies of intelligence, freedom, and humanity.
The Japanese people must never forget the name of the person this article is the first time they have seen, Sayaka Chatani, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore.
It is hard to believe that such a person is a university professor in the first place.
The following is an exclusive memoir by weekly Shincho.
The Harvard Professor Who was turned into an 'ostracism' Reveals
The abnormal bashing of his "comfort women = professional prostitutes" thesis
Japanese Researchers Move to 'Exclude' Instead of 'Disprove
Korean scholar's "thesis withdrawal" prominent movement
The lie of the Asahi Shimbun "Seiji Yoshida" that goes through overseas
The fact that the Japanese military did not coerce prostitution
Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer
The article "Prostitution Contracts in the Pacific War," published at the end of 2020, was heavily denounced in South Korea and the United States because it rejected the theory that comfort women were sex slaves.
However, this was a politically motivated movement that trampled on academic freedom.
One year has passed since the uproar, and the whole story of the personal attack is so terrible.
My articles and books have rarely attracted attention.
I write inconspicuous articles and books read-only by a minimal number of specialists.
The same is true for my paper on comfort women that I published in the second half of 2020, which no one paid much attention to except for one economic website that lightly commented on it.
However, a year ago, in late January 2021, the Sankei Shimbun published an excellent paper summary.
It appeared on the Sankei Shimbun website on Thursday, January 28, and in the paper on Sunday.
On Monday, February 1, I woke up, as usual, breakfasted, drank coffee, and checked my email.
I began to receive harassing hate mail slandering me.
The Korean media had picked up the Sankei article on my paper.
I received 77 hate emails on Monday, all of which were hostile, anti-Japanese, and mostly insane.
Every day after that, I received more hate mail, and it continued for two months.
The hate mail prompted me to check the website of The International Review of Law & Economics, which published my article, and found that the publisher, Elsevier, had posted a tweet about the report, saying It turns out that there have been 1,200 tweets about my paper.
It is bizarre.
No one had ever tweeted about my paper before, not even once.
I didn't even know how to read the tweets.
With the help of my son, I registered a Twitter account and was taught the search function.
It turned out that a group of American academics had read the Korean media article and were outraged.
The first one seemed to be Hannah Shepard, a young scholar currently teaching Japanese history at Yale University.
She tweeted on Monday morning, "I'm completely speechless where to begin. An hour later, she tweeted, "I could ignore this article, but it's on the front page of the Korean media, with the name of his organization on it. But with his name on the front page of the Korean media, can I ignore it? Can I ignore it?"
Among the top tweeters were Amy Stanley (who teaches Japanese history at Northwestern University) and David Ambaras (a professor at North Carolina State University), who tweeted back and forth throughout the day. Paula Curtis, a young scholar, joined them.
By Tuesday, the tweeters had concluded that they should stage a protest to demand the paper's retraction.
In fact, Stanley and Shepherd had each asked the journal's publisher to retract the article on Monday.
Shepherd had posted her request on Twitter so that others could refer to it.
She added, "Ramseyer's article simply repeats the views of Japan's far-right denialists in an echo-chamber fashion in an academic journal.
My critics seemed to be enjoying the festivities on Twitter.
Curtis tweeted, "Hey, at least five women say they've sent a letter of request to the editor about this terrible paper by Ramseyer.
Curtis tweeted, "How many male academics have protested? She continued.
Within two weeks, Shepherd, Stanley, Sayaka Chatani (assistant professor at Singapore National University), and Chelsea Sendy (professor at Aoyama Gakuin University) - all Japanese studies scholars in the School of Humanities - had sent a 30-page letter to the journal demanding a retraction of my article. Within a week, my colleagues at Harvard University, Andrew Gordon, a Japanese historian, and Carter Eckert, a Korean historian, submitted a letter to the journal's publisher asking for a retraction.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed they had not seen me or the actual contract.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed I had not seen the actual contract.
They both accused me of gross academic dishonesty.
Pressure on my organization
At Harvard Law School, Jinny Seok Ji-young, a colleague of mine, submitted a critical article to The New Yorker (apparently a popular magazine among the intelligentsia).
Although she had little knowledge of Japanese or Korean history, she contacted some of my critics (Ambaras and Gordon, for example) and repeated their arguments.
As a matter of fact, there were only three mistakes in my 30+ page paper, excluding page numbers and the like; none of them were severe mistakes.
Gordon and Eckert claim that I have not seen the actual contracts, but there are numerous references to Korean and Japanese comfort women working under contract.
Almost every Japanese book on the subject mentions contracts.
Japanese government documents, memoirs, newspaper advertisements, diaries, and others also contain descriptions of contracts.
Concurrently, Michael Choi, a Korean-American political scientist at UCLA, organized a petition drive among political scientists and economists to have my article withdrawn from publication, eventually gathering over 3,000 signatures.
Many of the signatures were in Korean surnames.
I don't think many of those who signed the petition have a deep knowledge of Japanese or Korean history.
It came as a shock to me that a scholar would sign a petition to have a paper on a subject he is ignorant of withdrawn from publication.
But in fact, many academics did sign the petition.
American professors began the old-fashioned and very ruthless ostracism.
Harvard University has a Japanese Studies Program (called the Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies, after the former ambassador to Japan and Harvard professor), of which I am a member.
On the Institute's website, other professors of Japanese studies immediately posted the criticisms of Gordon and the five scholars, which continued for nearly six months.
I am on the boards of several academic groups, and one of my critics pressured the board to convene a special committee to consider removing me from the board.
The critics also attacked my editor.
Several publishers were planning to publish my other papers. All of them had nothing to do with comfort women.
Nevertheless, my critics urged the editors to cancel the articles.
Humanities Department with Many Far-Leftists
The series of developments was bizarre.
The theory that the Japanese military forced Korean women to become comfort women is not a reasonable one.
Every military base has brothels in the vicinity, and some prostitutes are willing to work there.
Many women seek out these jobs for the money.
In such a situation, did the Japanese military forcibly gather Korean women (who had Japanese nationality, to begin with) and force them to work? Unfortunately, such a story does not make sense.
However, the controversy over the comfort stations is deeply related to "politics. It should be evident to readers of this magazine that politics is behind the attacks from South Korea.
Voters' support for the current South Korean government is based on strong anti-Japanese sentiment and criticism of Japan.
The Japanese military's theory forced Korean women to go to comfort stations forms part of the voter support.
This theory helps the current administration maintain its power, and the attacks on me come from the dynamics of the election.
South Korea is a democracy, but it is a democracy limited to the extent that it does not dispute and debate the comfort women issue.
Scholars who deny forced entrainment may be forced out of college. Sometimes it even develops into a criminal procedure.
It seems that scholars like Michael Che want to bring such unacceptable behavior to American universities.
It may be difficult for readers of this journal to understand the political background of Japanese studies scholars in the United States, such as Gordon, Stanley, Ambaras, and the other five.
A hint of this can be found in a recent article Curtis wrote.
According to her, "privilege, institutions, and networks of the haves contribute to the abuse of power by some groups; usually, white males in elite organizations in senior positions,"
And researchers like her are struggling to "liberate and reform" universities from "senior white men" like me.
Curtis's comment reflects the strange political situation in contemporary American universities' humanities departments.
Most humanities departments are uniformly center-left, and many are far left.
The extreme nationalist Korean narrative about comfort women seems to fit this political thinking.
Anyway, when the comfort women issue comes up, critics like Stanley and Ambaras seem to censor it decisively and thoroughly.
In mid-November 2021, a prominent South Korean economist, Lee Woo-Yeon, wrote an article in the diplomatic journal The Diplomat.
He, like me, disagreed with the theory that the Korean comfort women were sex slaves.
Ambaras posted a screenshot of the article on Twitter, declaring, "The comfort women deniers are hideous," and asking, "Why would The Diplomat publish this piece of garbage? He continued.
Stanley retweeted the contribution, and Chaya joined in the writing.
Within a few hours, Mitchie Nunn, a reporter from The Diplomat, replied, "We're responding. I'm sorry," he replied, and shortly after, "We have removed the contribution. I am truly sorry for such an unpleasant and unacceptable mistake," he wrote.
In case that apology wasn't enough, he added, "We sincerely apologize for the way we posted this contributed text on our website. The text has been removed," The text has been removed," he added to apologize.
But Ambaras didn't stop there. Singh wrote back, "The editors should tell the public why they allowed this to be published in the first place and what measures they will take to prevent similar mistakes in the future."
Singh replied, "I will make a statement on our official account. But, again, I have no excuse. As the chief reporter for Korea and North Korea, I will be in closer contact with the editors and will do my best to review all outside contributions.
Ambaras said, "Thank you. We all have a mountain of work to do in dealing with negativity, don't we?
Singh continued to apologize and said, "Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have contacted me directly to point out this issue and ensure that it is addressed promptly by The Diplomat and me. Please continue to review our communications as much as possible and provide us with your insights. Thank you," he added.
The source of information is still "Seiji Yoshida.
What actually happened in Korea is, of course, very simple.
To minimize venereal disease, the Japanese government expanded the previously existing domestic prostitution licensing system to include foreign countries.
The military did not need to force women into prostitution.
Prostitution was a well-paying job for the poorest women, and many poor women in pre-war Japan and Korea competed for this job.
The military could not afford to use soldiers to force prostitution on unwilling women in the first place. After all, the soldiers were fighting a war.
However, about 40 years after the war, a man named Seiji Yoshida published a book titled "My War Crimes," in which he wrote that he and his soldiers went to Korea and "hunted women" to be sent to comfort stations.
As soon as the book was published, elderly Korean women began to claim that they had been forcibly taken by Japanese soldiers and started demanding money and apologies from the Japanese government.
The women, who had previously said that they had entered the workforce of their own volition, now began to claim (after the publication of Yoshida's book) that they had been forced into the workforce by Japanese soldiers.
Women who used to say that their parents pressured them to take jobs now claim that they were forced to do so by Japanese soldiers.
The same goes for the famous UN criticism of Japan (the Radhika Kumaraswamy Report). In her report, she explicitly cited Yoshida's book.
However, as readers of this magazine already know, Yoshida later confessed that her book was a complete lie.
There is no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no evidence that the Japanese military forced Korean women into prostitution in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is virtually no mention of the Japanese government forcing Korean women into prostitution in publications before 1985 in Korea.
And many of the women who have changed their claims live in nursing homes owned by women who were indicted for massive financial fraud.
How much of this history is understood by American scholars is a mystery.
In 2003, Gordon published another book based on an English-language source based on Yoshida's made-up book.
In 2003, however, it was well known in Japan that Yoshida's book was false.
Nevertheless, in the U.S., a professor of Japanese history at Harvard University wrote a book on comfort women in 2003, using Yoshida's book as a source of information.
In Japan, anyone who reads newspapers knows that the women began claiming forced labor shortly after the publication of Yoshida's book.
American researchers, however, make no mention of this book at all.
They quote many women's words but rarely mention that their stories have changed (in some cases, many times).
He also rarely mentions the fact that Yoshida's falsehoods caused the controversy.
What really happened on the Korean peninsula in the 1930s is evident.
The Japanese military did not force Korean women into prostitution, it simply did not happen.
Sometimes, however, the more obviously wrong their claims are, the more scholars will attack them for pointing out the simple truth.
On this subject, American scholars of Japanese history are surprisingly militant.
They have not attempted to disprove my paper.
They asked for an injunction against the publication of the paper itself.
It is Stalinism in academia.
And it does not bode well for the future of Japanese studies in American universities.
我已經提到我訂閱Shukan Shincho是為了閱讀雜誌末尾Masayuki Takayama和Yoshiko Sakurai女士的專欄。
但是昨晚，在隨便翻一頁的時候，發現了下面的文章。
這是一篇批判性文章。
這篇文章很關鍵，因為它表明民主社會今天面臨的問題，或者被吹捧為民主危機和國內（尤其是美國）輿論分裂的問題，是自中國和韓國繼續以反日教育的名義實踐納粹主義，而在這種教育下長大的納粹正是將西方（尤其是美國）、日本和聯合國作為主要目標的人.
因為它證明是中韓兩國納粹國家以抗日教育的名義繼續進行納粹主義，以及在這種教育下成長起來的納粹分子進行的抗日宣傳，以西方（尤其是美國）、日本、聯合國為主要舞台。
聯合國。
如果你沒有時間宣揚可持續發展目標、全球變暖等中國的伎倆，你必須立即建議中國和韓國廢除納粹教育。
直到今天，聯合國對中國和韓國的持續忽視導致了民主危機，並助長了極權國家的暴政。
可以毫不誇張地說，聯合國現在完全由中國主導。
毫不誇張地說，造成這種局面的聯合國是破壞民主穩定的罪魁禍首。
這篇文章是日本人民和世界人民的必讀之作。
日本人民和世界上的每一個人都必須記住，下一篇文章中自稱學者的人是智慧、自由和人性的敵人。
日本人絕對不能忘記這篇文章是他們第一次見到的人的名字，新加坡國立大學助理教授沙谷沙也加。
很難相信這樣的人本來就是大學教授。
以下是周刊新潮的獨家回憶錄。
被“排斥”的哈佛教授透露
對他“慰安婦=職業妓女”論文的反常抨擊
日本研究人員轉向“排除”而不是“反駁”
韓國學者“論文撤稿”突出運動
穿越海外的朝日新聞“吉田誠司”的謊言
日本軍隊沒有強迫賣淫的事實
哈佛法學院教授 J. Mark Ramseyer
2020年底發表的《太平洋戰爭中的賣淫合同》一文，因否定慰安婦是性奴隸的理論，在韓國和美國遭到嚴厲譴責。
然而，這是一場踐踏學術自由的政治運動。
鬧得一年過去了，整個人身攻擊的故事太可怕了。
我的文章和書籍很少引起關注。
我寫一些不起眼的文章和書籍，只有極少數的專家才能閱讀。
我在2020年下半年發表的關於慰安婦的論文也是如此，除了一個經濟網站對它的輕描淡寫外，沒有人關注。
然而，一年前，也就是 2021 年 1 月下旬，產經新聞發表了一篇出色的論文摘要。
它於 1 月 28 日星期四出現在產經新聞網站上，並於星期日出現在報紙上。
2 月 1 日星期一，我像往常一樣醒來，吃早餐，喝咖啡，查看電子郵件。
我開始收到誹謗我的騷擾仇恨郵件。
韓國媒體在我的報紙上看到了產經的文章。
週一我收到了 77 封仇恨郵件，所有郵件都是充滿敵意的、反日的，而且大多是瘋狂的。
在那之後的每一天，我都會收到更多的仇恨郵件，並且持續了兩個月。
仇恨郵件促使我查看了發表我文章的《國際法律與經濟學評論》的網站，發現出版商 Elsevier 發布了一條關於該報告的推文，稱原來有 1200 條推文關於我的論文。
這很奇怪。
以前沒有人在推特上發布過我的論文，一次也沒有。
我什至不知道如何閱讀推文。
在兒子的幫助下，我註冊了一個 Twitter 帳戶，並學會了搜索功能。
原來，一群美國學者看了韓媒的文章，怒不可遏。
第一個似乎是漢娜·謝潑德，一位目前在耶魯大學教授日本歷史的年輕學者。
週一早上，她在推特上寫道：“我完全無語從哪裡開始。一個小時後，她在推特上說：“我可以忽略這篇文章，但它在韓國媒體的頭版，上面寫著他的組織名稱。但是他的名字在韓國媒體的頭版，我可以忽略它嗎？我可以無視嗎？”
推特最高的有艾米·斯坦利（在西北大學教授日本歷史）和大衛·安巴拉斯（北卡羅來納州立大學教授），他們全天來回發推文。年輕的學者保拉·柯蒂斯加入了他們的行列。
到週二，推特用戶已經得出結論，他們應該發起抗議，要求該報撤稿。
事實上，斯坦利和謝潑德都曾要求期刊的出版商在周一撤回這篇文章。
Shepherd 在 Twitter 上發布了她的請求，以便其他人可以參考。
她補充說：“拉姆塞耶的文章只是在學術期刊上以迴聲室的方式重複了日本極右翼否認者的觀點。
我的批評者似乎很享受 Twitter 上的慶祝活動。
柯蒂斯在推特上寫道：“嘿，至少有五名女性說，她們已經向編輯發送了一封請求信，內容是關於拉姆齊爾的這篇糟糕的論文。
柯蒂斯在推特上寫道：“有多少男性學者抗議？她繼續說。
兩週內，人文學院的所有日本研究學者Shepherd、Stanley、Sayaka Chatani（新加坡國立大學助理教授）和Chelsea Sendy（青山學院大學教授）向該期刊發送了一封長達30頁的信要求撤回我的文章。一周之內，我在哈佛大學的同事、日本歷史學家安德魯·戈登和韓國歷史學家卡特·埃克特向該期刊的出版商提交了一封信，要求撤稿。
五位學者爭辯說我的論文中有很多錯誤的歸屬，戈登和埃克特聲稱他們沒有看到我或實際的合同。
五位學者爭辯說我的論文中有很多錯誤的歸屬，戈登和埃克特聲稱我沒有看到實際的合同。
他們都指責我嚴重的學術不誠實。
我的組織面臨壓力
在哈佛法學院，我的同事 Jinny Seok Ji-young 向《紐約客》（顯然是知識分子的熱門雜誌）提交了一篇批評文章。
儘管她對日本或韓國的歷史知之甚少，但她還是聯繫了我的一些批評者（例如安巴拉斯和戈登）並重複了他們的論點。
事實上，我30多頁的論文中只有三個錯誤，不包括頁碼之類的；他們都不是嚴重的錯誤。
Gordon 和 Eckert 聲稱我沒有看到實際的合同，但有很多提到韓國和日本的慰安婦在合同下工作。
幾乎每一本關於這個主題的日本書都提到了合同。
日本政府文件、回憶錄、報紙廣告、日記等也包含對合同的描述。
與此同時，加州大學洛杉磯分校的韓裔美國政治學家邁克爾·崔（Michael Choi）在政治學家和經濟學家中組織了一場請願活動，要求我的文章撤稿，最終獲得了 3000 多個簽名。
許多簽名都是韓國姓氏。
我不認為許多簽署請願書的人對日本或韓國的歷史有深入的了解。
令我震驚的是，一位學者會簽署一份請願書，要求發表一篇他不知道的主題的論文退出出版。
但事實上，許多學者確實簽署了請願書。
美國教授開始了老式的、非常無情的排斥。
哈佛大學有一個日本研究項目（稱為賴紹爾日本研究所，前任駐日本大使和哈佛大學教授），我是其中的一員。
在研究所的網站上，其他日本研究教授立即發布了對戈登和五位學者的批評，持續了近六個月。
我是幾個學術團體的董事會成員，我的一位批評者向董事會施壓，要求召集一個特別委員會考慮將我從董事會中除名。
批評者還攻擊了我的編輯。
幾家出版商正計劃出版我的其他論文。他們都與慰安婦無關。
儘管如此，我的批評者還是敦促編輯取消這些文章。
本文繼續。
I've already mentioned that I subscribe to Shukan Shincho for the sake of reading the columns by Masayuki Takayama and Ms. Yoshiko Sakurai at the end of the magazine.
But last night, while casually reading another page, I found the following article.
It is a critical article.
This article is critical because it shows that the problems that democratic societies are facing today, or what is being touted as a crisis of democracy and the division of public opinion within the country (especially in the United States), is since the Nazi nations of China and South Korea continue to practice Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education and that the Nazis who grew up with this education are the ones who are making the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations their primary targets.
It is because it proves that it is anti-Japanese propaganda being carried out by the Nazi states of China and South Korea, which continue to carry out Nazism in the name of anti-Japanese education, and by the Nazis who grew up with this education, using the West (especially the United States), Japan, and the United Nations as their main stage.
The UN.
If you don't have time to preach about the SDGs, global warming, etc., which are China's tricks, you must immediately recommend that China and Korea abolish Nazi education.
The UN's continued neglect of China and South Korea to this day has led to a crisis of democracy and has encouraged the tyranny of totalitarian states.
It is no exaggeration to say that the United Nations is now entirely dominated by China.
It is no exaggeration to say that the UN, which has brought about such a state of affairs, is the main culprit in destabilizing democracy.
This article is a must-read for the Japanese people and people worldwide.
The Japanese people and everyone else in the world must remember that the people who call themselves scholars in the following article are the enemies of intelligence, freedom, and humanity.
The Japanese people must never forget the name of the person this article is the first time they have seen, Sayaka Chatani, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore.
It is hard to believe that such a person is a university professor in the first place.
The following is an exclusive memoir by Shukan Shincho.
The Harvard Professor Who was turned into an 'ostracism' Reveals
The abnormal bashing of his "comfort women = professional prostitutes" thesis
Japanese Researchers Move to 'Exclude' Instead of 'Disprove
Korean scholar's "thesis withdrawal" prominent movement
The lie of the Asahi Shimbun "Seiji Yoshida" that goes through overseas
The fact that the Japanese military did not coerce prostitution
Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer
The article "Prostitution Contracts in the Pacific War," published at the end of 2020, was heavily denounced in South Korea and the United States because it rejected the theory that comfort women were sex slaves.
However, this was a politically motivated movement that trampled on academic freedom.
One year has passed since the uproar, and the whole story of the personal attack is so terrible.
My articles and books have rarely attracted attention.
I write inconspicuous articles and books read-only by a minimal number of specialists.
The same is true for my paper on comfort women that I published in the second half of 2020, which no one paid much attention to except for one economic website that lightly commented on it.
However, a year ago, in late January 2021, the Sankei Shimbun published an excellent paper summary.
It appeared on the Sankei Shimbun website on Thursday, January 28, and in the paper on Sunday.
On Monday, February 1, I woke up, as usual, breakfasted, drank coffee, and checked my email.
I began to receive harassing hate mail slandering me.
The Korean media had picked up the Sankei article on my paper.
I received 77 hate emails on Monday, all of which were hostile, anti-Japanese, and mostly insane.
Every day after that, I received more hate mail, and it continued for two months.
The hate mail prompted me to check the website of The International Review of Law & Economics, which published my article, and found that the publisher, Elsevier, had posted a tweet about the report, saying It turns out that there have been 1,200 tweets about my paper.
It is bizarre.
No one had ever tweeted about my paper before, not even once.
I didn't even know how to read the tweets.
With the help of my son, I registered a Twitter account and was taught the search function.
It turned out that a group of American academics had read the Korean media article and were outraged.
The first one seemed to be Hannah Shepard, a young scholar currently teaching Japanese history at Yale University.
She tweeted on Monday morning, "I'm completely speechless where to begin. An hour later, she tweeted, "I could ignore this article, but it's on the front page of the Korean media, with the name of his organization on it. But with his name on the front page of the Korean media, can I ignore it? Can I ignore it?"
Among the top tweeters were Amy Stanley (who teaches Japanese history at Northwestern University) and David Ambaras (a professor at North Carolina State University), who tweeted back and forth throughout the day. Paula Curtis, a young scholar, joined them.
By Tuesday, the tweeters had concluded that they should stage a protest to demand the paper's retraction.
In fact, Stanley and Shepherd had each asked the journal's publisher to retract the article on Monday.
Shepherd had posted her request on Twitter so that others could refer to it.
She added, "Ramseyer's article simply repeats the views of Japan's far-right denialists in an echo-chamber fashion in an academic journal.
My critics seemed to be enjoying the festivities on Twitter.
Curtis tweeted, "Hey, at least five women say they've sent a letter of request to the editor about this terrible paper by Ramseyer.
Curtis tweeted, "How many male academics have protested? She continued.
Within two weeks, Shepherd, Stanley, Sayaka Chatani (assistant professor at Singapore National University), and Chelsea Sendy (professor at Aoyama Gakuin University) - all Japanese studies scholars in the School of Humanities - had sent a 30-page letter to the journal demanding a retraction of my article. Within a week, my colleagues at Harvard University, Andrew Gordon, a Japanese historian, and Carter Eckert, a Korean historian, submitted a letter to the journal's publisher asking for a retraction.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed they had not seen me or the actual contract.
The five scholars argued that there were many misattributions in my paper, and Gordon and Eckert claimed I had not seen the actual contract.
They both accused me of gross academic dishonesty.
Pressure on my organization
At Harvard Law School, Jinny Seok Ji-young, a colleague of mine, submitted a critical article to The New Yorker (apparently a popular magazine among the intelligentsia).
Although she had little knowledge of Japanese or Korean history, she contacted some of my critics (Ambaras and Gordon, for example) and repeated their arguments.
As a matter of fact, there were only three mistakes in my 30+ page paper, excluding page numbers and the like; none of them were severe mistakes.
Gordon and Eckert claim that I have not seen the actual contracts, but there are numerous references to Korean and Japanese comfort women working under contract.
Almost every Japanese book on the subject mentions contracts.
Japanese government documents, memoirs, newspaper advertisements, diaries, and others also contain descriptions of contracts.
Concurrently, Michael Choi, a Korean-American political scientist at UCLA, organized a petition drive among political scientists and economists to have my article withdrawn from publication, eventually gathering over 3,000 signatures.
Many of the signatures were in Korean surnames.
I don't think many of those who signed the petition have a deep knowledge of Japanese or Korean history.
It came as a shock to me that a scholar would sign a petition to have a paper on a subject he is ignorant of withdrawn from publication.
But in fact, many academics did sign the petition.
American professors began the old-fashioned and very ruthless ostracism.
Harvard University has a Japanese Studies Program (called the Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies, after the former ambassador to Japan and Harvard professor), of which I am a member.
On the Institute's website, other professors of Japanese studies immediately posted the criticisms of Gordon and the five scholars, which continued for nearly six months.
I am on the boards of several academic groups, and one of my critics pressured the board to convene a special committee to consider removing me from the board.
The critics also attacked my editor.
Several publishers were planning to publish my other papers. All of them had nothing to do with comfort women.
Nevertheless, my critics urged the editors to cancel the articles.
Humanities Department with Many Far-Leftists
The series of developments was bizarre.
The theory that the Japanese military forced Korean women to become comfort women is not a reasonable one.
Every military base has brothels in the vicinity, and there are prostitutes who are willing to work there.
There are many women who seek out these jobs for the money.
In such a situation, did the Japanese military forcibly gather Korean women (who had Japanese nationality to begin with) and force them to work? Such a story does not make sense.
However, the controversy over the comfort stations is deeply related to "politics. It should be obvious to readers of this magazine that politics is behind the attacks from South Korea.
Voters' support for the current South Korean government is based on strong anti-Japanese sentiment and criticism of Japan.
The theory that the Japanese military forced Korean women to go to comfort stations forms part of the voter support.
This theory is what helps the current administration maintain its power, and the attacks on me come from the dynamics of the election.
South Korea is a democracy, but it is a democracy limited to the extent that it does not dispute and debate the comfort women issue.
Scholars who deny the existence of forced marriages are sometimes forced out of their university positions. In some cases, they even face criminal proceedings.
It seems that scholars like Michael Che want to bring such unacceptable behavior to American universities.
It may be difficult for readers of this journal to understand the political background of Japanese studies scholars in the United States, such as Gordon, Stanley, Ambaras, and the other five.
A hint of this can be found in a recent article Curtis wrote.
According to her, "privilege, institutions, and networks of the haves contribute to the abuse of power by some groups, usually white males in elite organizations in senior positions," and researchers like her are struggling to "liberate and reform" universities from "senior white males" like me. And researchers like her are struggling to "liberate and reform" universities from "senior white men" like me.
Curtis's comment reflects the strange political situation that exists in the humanities departments of contemporary American universities.
Most humanities departments are uniformly center-left, and many are far left.
The extreme nationalist Korean narrative about the comfort women seems to fit into this political thinking.
Anyway, when the comfort women issue comes up, critics like Stanley and Ambaras seem to censor it decisively and thoroughly.
In mid-November 2021, a prominent South Korean economist, Lee Woo-Yeon, wrote an article in the diplomatic journal The Diplomat.
He, like me, disagreed with the theory that the Korean comfort women were sexual slaves.
Ambaras posted a screenshot of the article on Twitter, declaring, "The comfort women deniers are hideous," and asking, "Why would The Diplomat publish this piece of garbage? He continued.
Stanley retweeted the contribution, and Chatani joined in the writing.
Within a few hours, Mitchie shin, a reporter from The Diplomat, replied, "We're responding. I'm sorry," he replied, and shortly after, "We have removed the contribution. I am truly sorry for such an unpleasant and unacceptable mistake," he wrote.
This article continues.
我已经提到我订阅Shukan Shincho是为了阅读杂志末尾Masayuki Takayama和Yoshiko Sakurai女士的专栏。
但是昨晚，在随便翻一页的时候，发现了下面的文章。
这是一篇批判性文章。
这篇文章很关键，因为它表明民主社会今天面临的问题，或者被吹捧为民主危机和国内（尤其是美国）舆论分裂的问题，是自中国和韩国继续以反日教育的名义实行纳粹主义，而在这种教育下长大的纳粹正是将西方（尤其是美国）、日本和联合国作为主要目标的人.
因为它证明是中国和韩国这两个纳粹国家以抗日教育的名义继续进行纳粹主义，以及在这种教育下长大的纳粹分子进行的抗日宣传，以西方（尤其是美国）、日本、联合国为主要舞台。
联合国。
如果你没有时间宣扬可持续发展目标、全球变暖等中国的伎俩，你必须立即建议中国和韩国废除纳粹教育。
直到今天，联合国对中国和韩国的持续忽视导致了民主危机，并助长了极权国家的暴政。
可以毫不夸张地说，联合国现在完全由中国主导。
毫不夸张地说，造成这种局面的联合国是破坏民主稳定的罪魁祸首。
这篇文章是日本人民和世界人民的必读之作。
日本人民和世界上的每一个人都必须记住，下一篇文章中自称学者的人是智慧、自由和人性的敌人。
日本人绝对不能忘记这篇文章是他们第一次见到的人的名字，新加坡国立大学助理教授沙谷沙也加。
很难相信这样的人本来就是大学教授。
以下是周刊新潮的独家回忆录。
被“排斥”的哈佛教授透露
对他“慰安妇=职业妓女”论文的反常抨击
日本研究人员转向“排除”而不是“反驳”
韩国学者“论文撤稿”突出运动
穿越海外的朝日新闻“吉田诚司”的谎言
日本军队没有强迫卖淫的事实
哈佛法学院教授 J. Mark Ramseyer
2020年底发表的《太平洋战争中的卖淫合同》一文，因否定慰安妇是性奴隶的理论，在韩国和美国遭到严厉谴责。
然而，这是一场践踏学术自由的政治运动。
闹得一年过去了，整个人身攻击的故事太可怕了。
我的文章和书籍很少引起关注。
我写一些不起眼的文章和书籍，只有极少数的专家才能阅读。
我在2020年下半年发表的关于慰安妇的论文也是如此，除了一个经济网站对它的轻描淡写外，没有人关注。
然而，一年前，也就是 2021 年 1 月下旬，产经新闻发表了一篇出色的论文摘要。
它于 1 月 28 日星期四出现在产经新闻网站上，并于星期日出现在报纸上。
2 月 1 日星期一，我像往常一样醒来，吃早餐，喝咖啡，查看电子邮件。
我开始收到诽谤我的骚扰仇恨邮件。
韩国媒体在我的报纸上看到了产经的文章。
周一我收到了 77 封仇恨邮件，所有邮件都是充满敌意的、反日的，而且大多是疯狂的。
在那之后的每一天，我都会收到更多的仇恨邮件，并且持续了两个月。
仇恨邮件促使我查看了发表我的文章的 The International Review of Law & Economics 的网站，发现出版商 Elsevier 发布了一条关于该报告的推文，称原来有 1200 条推文关于我的论文。
这很奇怪。
以前没有人在推特上发布过我的论文，一次也没有。
我什至不知道如何阅读推文。
在儿子的帮助下，我注册了一个 Twitter 帐户，并学会了搜索功能。
原来，一群美国学者看了韩媒的文章，怒不可遏。
第一个似乎是汉娜·谢泼德，一位目前在耶鲁大学教授日本历史的年轻学者。
周一早上，她在推特上写道：“我完全无语从哪里开始。一个小时后，她在推特上说，“我可以忽略这篇文章，但它在韩国媒体的头版，上面写着他的组织名称。但是他的名字在韩国媒体的头版，我可以忽略它吗？我可以无视吗？”
推特最高的有艾米·斯坦利（在西北大学教授日本历史）和大卫·安巴拉斯（北卡罗来纳州立大学教授），他们全天来回发推文。年轻的学者保拉·柯蒂斯加入了他们的行列。
到周二，推特用户已经得出结论，他们应该发起抗议，要求该报撤稿。
事实上，斯坦利和谢泼德都曾要求期刊的出版商在周一撤回这篇文章。
Shepherd 在 Twitter 上发布了她的请求，以便其他人可以参考。
她补充说：“拉姆塞耶的文章只是在学术期刊上以回声室的方式重复了日本极右翼否认者的观点。
我的批评者似乎很享受 Twitter 上的庆祝活动。
柯蒂斯在推特上写道：“嘿，至少有五名女性说，她们已经向编辑发送了一封请求信，内容是关于拉姆齐尔的这篇糟糕的论文。
柯蒂斯在推特上写道：“有多少男性学者抗议？她继续说。
两周内，人文学院的所有日本研究学者Shepherd、Stanley、Sayaka Chatani（新加坡国立大学助理教授）和Chelsea Sendy（青山学院大学教授）向该期刊发送了一封长达30页的信要求撤回我的文章。一周之内，我在哈佛大学的同事、日本历史学家安德鲁·戈登和韩国历史学家卡特·埃克特向该期刊的出版商提交了一封信，要求撤稿。
五位学者争辩说我的论文中有很多错误的归属，戈登和埃克特声称他们没有看到我或实际的合同。
五位学者争辩说我的论文中有很多错误的归属，戈登和埃克特声称我没有看到实际的合同。
他们都指责我严重的学术不诚实。
我的组织面临压力
在哈佛法学院，我的同事 Jinny Seok Ji-young 向《纽约客》（显然是知识分子的热门杂志）提交了一篇批评文章。
尽管她对日本或韩国的历史知之甚少，但她还是联系了我的一些批评者（例如安巴拉斯和戈登）并重复了他们的论点。
事实上，我30多页的论文中只有三个错误，不包括页码之类的；他们都不是严重的错误。
Gordon 和 Eckert 声称我没有看到实际的合同，但有很多提到韩国和日本的慰安妇在合同下工作。
几乎每一本关于这个主题的日本书都提到了合同。
日本政府文件、回忆录、报纸广告、日记等也包含对合同的描述。
与此同时，加州大学洛杉矶分校的韩裔美国政治学家迈克尔·崔（Michael Choi）在政治学家和经济学家中组织了一场请愿活动，要求我的文章撤稿，最终获得了 3000 多个签名。
许多签名都是韩国姓氏。
我不认为许多签署请愿书的人对日本或韩国的历史有深入的了解。
令我震惊的是，一位学者会签署一份请愿书，要求发表一篇他不知道的主题的论文退出出版。
但事实上，许多学者确实签署了请愿书。
美国教授开始了老式的、非常无情的排斥。
哈佛大学有一个日本研究项目（称为赖绍尔日本研究所，前任驻日本大使和哈佛大学教授），我是其中的一员。
在研究所的网站上，其他日本研究教授立即发布了对戈登和五位学者的批评，持续了近六个月。
我是几个学术团体的董事会成员，我的一位批评者向董事会施压，要求召集一个特别委员会考虑将我从董事会中除名。
批评者还攻击了我的编辑。
几家出版商正计划出版我的其他论文。他们都与慰安妇无关。
尽管如此，我的批评者还是敦促编辑取消这些文章。
本文继续。
나는 이미 잡지 말미에 Masayuki Takayama와 Ms. Yoshiko Sakurai의 칼럼을 읽기 위해 Shukan Shincho를 구독하고 있다고 언급했습니다.
그런데 어젯밤 우연히 다른 페이지를 읽다가 다음 기사를 발견했습니다.
비판적인 글입니다.
이 기사는 오늘날 민주주의 사회가 직면하고 있는 문제, 또는 민주주의의 위기와 국내(특히 미국에서) 여론 분열로 선전되고 있는 문제가 중국과 한국은 항일교육이라는 명목으로 나치즘을 계속 실천하고 있으며, 이 교육을 받으며 자란 나치는 서방(특히 미국), 일본, 유엔을 주요 목표물로 삼고 있다. .
항일 교육이라는 명목으로 나치즘을 자행하는 중국과 남한의 나치 국가들과 이 교육을 받으며 자란 나치들이 펼치고 있는 반일 선전임을 증명하기 때문이다. , 서방(특히 미국), 일본, 유엔을 주 무대로 삼았다.
유엔.
중국의 속임수인 SDGs, 지구 온난화 등을 설교할 시간이 없다면 즉시 중국과 한국에 나치 교육을 폐지하도록 권고해야 한다.
유엔의 계속된 중국과 한국의 방치는 오늘날까지도 민주주의의 위기를 초래하고 전체주의 국가의 폭정을 조장하고 있다.
유엔은 이제 중국이 완전히 장악하고 있다고 해도 과언이 아니다.
이러한 사태를 초래한 유엔이 민주주의를 불안정하게 만든 주범이라고 해도 과언이 아니다.
이 기사는 일본 국민과 전 세계 사람들이 반드시 읽어야 합니다.
일본 국민과 세계의 모든 사람들은 다음 기사에서 스스로를 학자라고 부르는 사람들이 지성, 자유, 인류의 적임을 기억해야 합니다.
일본인들은 이 기사에서 처음 본 사람의 이름인 싱가포르국립대학교 차타니 사야카 조교수를 잊지 말아야 한다.
저런 사람이 애초에 대학교수라는게 믿기지 않을 정도다.
다음은 주간 신초의 단독 회고록이다.
'추방'으로 변해버린 하버드 교수 폭로
그의 "위안부 = 전문 매춘부"논문의 비정상적인 구타
일본 연구원들은 '반증' 대신 '제외'로 이동
한국 학자의 '논문 철회' 두드러진 운동
해외를 관통하는 아사히신문 "요시다 세이지"의 거짓말
일본군이 성매매를 강요하지 않았다는 사실
하버드 로스쿨 교수 J. Mark Ramseyer
2020년 말 발행된 '태평양 전쟁 성매매 계약' 기사는 위안부가 성노예라는 이론을 배척했다는 이유로 한국과 미국에서 큰 비난을 받았다.
그러나 이것은 학문적 자유를 짓밟는 정치적 동기였다.
소란이 일어난 지 1년이 지났고, 인신공격의 전체 스토리는 너무 끔찍합니다.
내 기사와 책은 거의 관심을 끌지 못했습니다.
나는 눈에 띄지 않는 기사와 책을 최소한의 전문가만 읽을 수 있도록 씁니다.
제가 2020년 하반기에 발표한 위안부 관련 논문도 마찬가지입니다. 한 경제사이트에서 가볍게 논평한 것 외에는 아무도 주목하지 않았습니다.
그러나 1년 전인 2021년 1월 말에 산케이 신문은 우수한 논문 요약을 발표했습니다.
1월 28일(목) 산케이 신문 홈페이지, 일요일 신문에 실렸습니다.
2월 1일 월요일, 나는 여느 때처럼 일어나 아침을 먹고, 커피를 마시고, 이메일을 확인했다.
저를 비방하는 성희롱 메일을 받기 시작했습니다.
한국 언론은 내 신문에 산케이 기사를 주웠다.
나는 월요일에 77개의 증오 이메일을 받았는데, 모두 적대적이고 반일적이며 대부분 정신 이상이었습니다.
그 후 매일 더 많은 증오 메일을 받았고 두 달 동안 계속되었습니다.
증오 메일은 내 기사를 게시한 International Review of Law & Economics의 웹사이트를 확인하게 했고 발행인 Elsevier가 보고서에 대해 1,200건의 트윗이 있었다는 트윗을 게시했음을 발견했습니다. 내 종이.
이상하다.
내 논문에 대해 트윗한 사람은 단 한 번도 없었습니다.
나는 트윗을 읽을 줄도 몰랐다.
아들의 도움으로 트위터 계정을 등록하고 검색 기능을 배웠습니다.
미국 학자 그룹이 한국 언론의 기사를 읽고 분노한 것으로 밝혀졌다.
첫 번째 사람은 현재 예일대학교에서 일본사를 가르치는 젊은 학자인 Hannah Shepard인 것 같습니다.
그녀는 월요일 아침 자신의 트윗에 "어디서부터 시작해야 할지 완전히 말문이 막혔다. 한 시간 후 그녀는 트윗에 "이 기사는 무시해도 되지만 한국 언론의 1면에 그의 조직 이름이 적혀 있다. 그런데 한국 언론 1면에 그의 이름이 있는데, 무시해도 될까요? 무시해도 될까요?"
최고 트위터에는 Amy Stanley(Northwestern University에서 일본 역사를 가르치고 있음)와 David Ambaras(North Carolina State University에서 교수)가 하루 종일 왔다갔다 트윗했습니다. 젊은 학자인 폴라 커티스(Paula Curtis)가 합류했습니다.
화요일까지 트위터는 신문의 철회를 요구하는 항의를 해야 한다고 결론지었다.
사실, Stanley와 Shepherd는 저널 발행인에게 월요일에 기사를 철회할 것을 각각 요청했습니다.
Shepherd는 다른 사람들이 참조할 수 있도록 자신의 요청을 Twitter에 게시했습니다.
그녀는 "램지어의 기사는 학술지에서 일본 극우 부정론자들의 견해를 반향실 형식으로 반복했을 뿐"이라고 덧붙였다.
내 비평가들은 트위터에서 축제를 즐기는 것 같았습니다.
커티스는 트위터에 "최소 5명의 여성이 램지어의 이 끔찍한 논문에 대해 편집자에게 요청 편지를 보냈다고 한다.
커티스는 트위터에 "얼마나 많은 남성 학자들이 시위를 했는가? 그녀는 계속했다.
2주 만에 Shepherd, Stanley, Sayaka Chatani(싱가포르국립대학교 조교수), Chelsea Sendy(Aoyama Gakuin University 교수) - 모든 인문대 일본학 학자들이 저널에 30페이지 분량의 편지를 보냈습니다. 내 기사의 철회를 요구합니다. 일주일 만에 하버드 대학의 동료인 일본 역사가 앤드류 고든과 한국 역사가 카터 에커트가 해당 저널의 출판사에 철회를 요청하는 서한을 제출했다.
5명의 학자들은 내 논문에 많은 오인이 있다고 주장했고, Gordon과 Eckert는 그들이 나나 실제 계약을 보지 못했다고 주장했다.
5명의 학자들은 내 논문에 많은 오인이 있다고 주장했고, Gordon과 Eckert는 내가 실제 계약을 보지 못했다고 주장했다.
그들은 둘 다 나를 심각한 학업 부정직으로 비난했습니다.
내 조직에 대한 압력
하버드 로스쿨에서 제 동료인 석지영은 비판적인 기사를 The New Yorker(지식인들 사이에서 인기 있는 잡지로 보임)에 기고했습니다.
그녀는 일본이나 한국 역사에 대한 지식이 거의 없었지만 나의 비평가들(예를 들어 Ambaras와 Gordon)에게 연락하여 그들의 주장을 되풀이했습니다.
사실, 30페이지가 넘는 내 논문에는 페이지 번호 등을 제외하고 단 세 번의 실수가 있었습니다. 그들 중 누구도 심각한 실수가 아니었다.
Gordon과 Eckert는 실제 계약을 보지 못했다고 주장하지만 계약하에 일하는 한국과 일본 위안부 여성에 대한 많은 언급이 있습니다.
이 주제에 관한 거의 모든 일본 책에는 계약이 언급되어 있습니다.
일본 정부 문서, 회고록, 신문 광고, 일기 등에도 계약에 대한 설명이 포함되어 있습니다.
동시에 UCLA의 한국계 미국인 정치학자인 Michael Choi가 정치학자와 경제학자들 사이에서 내 글이 출판되지 않도록 청원운동을 조직했고, 결국 3,000명이 넘는 서명을 받았습니다.
서명의 대부분은 한국 성씨로 되어 있었다.
청원에 서명한 사람들 중 일본이나 한국의 역사에 대해 깊이 있는 지식이 있는 사람은 많지 않은 것 같아요.
한 학자가 자신이 알지 못하는 주제에 대한 논문을 출판에서 철회해 달라는 청원서에 서명한다는 사실에 나는 충격을 받았습니다.
그러나 실제로 많은 학자들이 청원에 서명했습니다.
미국 교수들은 구식이며 매우 무자비한 배척을 시작했습니다.
하버드 대학교에는 일본 연구 프로그램(전 일본 대사와 하버드 교수의 이름을 따서 Reischauer 일본 연구 연구소라고 함)이 있습니다.
연구소 웹사이트에는 다른 일본학 교수들이 곧바로 고든과 5명의 학자에 대한 비판 글을 올렸고, 이는 거의 6개월 동안 계속됐다.
저는 여러 학계의 이사회에 속해 있으며, 비평가 중 한 명이 이사회에 저를 이사회에서 제거하는 것을 고려하기 위해 특별 위원회를 소집하도록 압력을 가했습니다.
비평가들은 내 편집자를 공격하기도 했다.
여러 출판사에서 내 다른 논문을 출판할 계획이었습니다. 그들 모두는 위안부와 아무 관련이 없었습니다.
그럼에도 불구하고 나의 비평가들은 편집자들에게 기사를 취소할 것을 촉구했습니다.
이 기사는 계속됩니다.
