Also note that to the eye of anyone more familiar with Asians and Japanese in particular, this (beautiful) woman is at least in her 40s.

Thank you! I really feel strongly about this issue – I think academia has so far completely wasted the potential of not just blogging, but a collaborative, ‘open-source’ approach to research and learning.

I would like to see more of this as well.

Oh do you remember why you thought they were like comparing apples and oranges?

As for your point that this would be moot in light of evidence in Mr. Shaw’s research; I’m less convinced by his findings.

Shaw overstates his case by (1) including comments from some guy’s personal biography (akin to modern day blog posts) together under the umbrella of “official Japanese documents” to bolster his accusation. And (2) in the following 1885 correspondence that he uncovered:

“Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

- leaves some room for questions that he assumes are answered. Are these the same islands? Are they in fact trying to occupy the islands that the Chinese newspaper rumors are about? If they were to “publicly place national markers,” would those even be on the islands in question, or just somewhere too close for Chinese comfort? I would think if Japan knowingly took a group of Chinese islands at the time it would arouse more than “suspicion.” The quote sounds more like the foreign minister is saying that if Japan moves up right along next to (but not inside) Chinese borders, it would arouse suspicion. Outright overtaking property would arouse more outrage than suspicion, would it not?

I think his research is worth looking into more, and definitely further complicates an already horribly complex debate, but the conclusions he draws takes a lot of assumptions for granted.