"Wm. Michael Mott" wrote:
>> Not only that but many Japanese are very racially concerned and do notWhile I won't deny the discrimination in Japan [depending on how you define racism, it may or may not be racism
>> like "Gai Jin" or people from other backgrounds than Japan.
>
> That is a generalization at best applies to Japanese living in Japan.
> And as Harumi Befu and Ohnuki-Tierney have commented in their books,
> this is a generalization that needs a lot of qualification and the like
> for the post-war Japanese. Kinda like saying all white Americans hate
> black Americans.
since all foreigners are gai-jin (aside from Chinese and Koreans) and there doesn't seem to be any distinguishing
of them based on phenotypic characteristics], my comments above were in the context of today's society in large metropolitan areas. They were also for the comment about the immigrants, which I feel fall into an entirely different mind set due to the old stigma of what it meant to be an immigrant and live abroad. I do feel for contemporary Japanese its like saying all whites in the USA hate blacks. My impression from reading the paper and the people I talk to, there are those who feel the outside world/globalization/Westernization should be stopped, and those who feel it should be speeded up all the more
(mainly since this country is entering its second decade of recession, and there seems to be a revolving door LDP government which has little or no solutions to the problem, and voter apathy is even higher than the USA).
Well, on the isolation issue after the attempted Mongol invasions, I think you have to put it into context.I greatly admire the history and culture of Japan--in many ways.
It's a culture which is simultaneously highly civilized, yet savagely
barbaric. During recent centuries, it has been perhaps one of the MOST
RACIST cultures on the planet, however.How can I say this?
Since the "divine intervention" on the part of a terrified Japan, when
Kublai Khan's invasion fleet was nearly destroyed and was driven back to
Korea 700 years ago (in 1274 and again in 1281) by the "kamikaze" ("divine
wind," or typhoon), the Japanese became increasingly isolationist and
xenophobic. The Shogunate largely consolidated and retained its power by
the "invisible threat" of future invasions by outsiders, which fed the
warrior culture and the development of bushido during the Tokugawa Shogunate
and throughout the Edo Period.
After the Yuan dynasty, the Chinese also withdrew into China and became isolationist. Other than the one admiral who had
the grand voyage in the Ming, the Chinese weren't trading much with outsiders either. From the political perspective, Japan
was wracked by civil war between the various clans. About the only people going back and forth are Buddhist monks (Chinese, Japanese and a few Koreans).
Hudson in his RUINS OF IDENTITY and a scholarly article or two has documented the fact the Ainu were heavy traders between northern Honshu, the Russian Far East and China though. Interesting stuff, but a diggression here.
Well, a couple of points on this one. First, some of the clans did openly accept trade with the Dutch, Portugese, and English.When Westerners first attempted to make friendly inroads into Japan, they
were met by extremes of racism and resistance. The Japanese concept of
being a "superior race" with a divine mandate due to the Emperor's descent
from Amateratsu the Sun Goddess, was well developed and entrenched. The
Dutch and English had to contend with limited access and being intentionally
isolated, and only Francis Xavier's Jesuits had some access to the country
and to the various political powers.
The Oda clan, which Oda Nobunaga came from is probably the classic example. It is also clear what he wanted---guns. He was also happy to play the Christian factions and the Buddhist factions (of which there were several off against each other).
Hideyoshi, his de-facto successor, was
the one who started closing the country off to Christianity and foreigners.
But IMO,
that peasant upstart :) was paranoid
of damn near everything and everyone.
As far as the resistance to Christianity goes, I would say its natural. Look at the Old Norse accounts of how they resisted Christianity, and other Late Antique accounts of how they also resisted being converted. IMO, Christianity when it totes out the fire-brimstone-all-be-damned sermons in the course of conversion, doesn't do itself any favors what-so-ever. So I'll split it with you on the conversion issue---yeah, medieval Japanese society has some racism/xenophobia, but some of the Christian groups lacked tack shall we say...
The Perry mission I still need to read more on. I don't think we canChristianity, a "gaijin" religion, was seen as a threat and eventually
proscribed. Practitioners were executed or tortured. The Tokugawa Shogunate
halted all immigration of foreigners, allowing a few Dutch and Chinese
traders and merchants only some limited access.Much later, U.S. Commodore Matthew C. Perry had a hard time making friends
with a very suspicious, unfriendly, and racist government, in 1853. In 1854
he finally succeeded in convincing Japan to sign a treaty with the U.S.,
which preceded treaties with other countries like Russia, Great Britain, and
the Netherlands.
rule out the threat of military action on the part of Perry. My understanding is he
presented two letters to the Tokugawa shogunate. One, which we have today, is basically asking for peaceful
relations, trade rights, etc. The other letter, which no one seems to know what became of it, has unknown
contents. In the recent text book controversy here in Japan, the right-wing scholars basically said this
was a threat of war. I have no idea. Could have been, then again it could have been something else entirely.
Once again too, let's put this into context.
the British in the 1840s had to pry China open to foreign trade also.
the Opium War. So, it is not like
East Asia is the most open place on earth in the 19th century to begin
with.
I wouldn't disagree with the statements on WW2. Its part of war to dehumanize the enemy.But Japan was still a very "racist" state at this point.
This concept of racial superiority was still very much alive during WWII,
and the Bataan Death March is only one example of this. The Nanking
Incident makes this clear, as do the MANY reports of cannibalism on the part
of Japanese soldiers, in which civilians of occupied territories, and
prisoners of war, were murdered to be eaten by Japanese. This is not a
"myth," but has been admitted, and was largely fueled by the concept which
the Japanese held at the time of themselves as the only "real" human
beings, all other types being inferior and essentially on a par with
animals. THIS de-humanizing behavior is the ultimate expression of racism,
and just a part of the information can be found at this URL:http://www.ukar.org/mclell18.shtml
If I'm wrong on any of these points, please let me know.
And without getting into a tit-for-tat argument and which atrocity worse than the next atrocity, the US and British forces were guilty of atrocities too. John Dower has several articles (and also I think its covered in his book WAR WITHOUT MERCY---if not there, his EMBRACING DEFEAT). I think he shocked a lot of Americans when he documented the practice of head-hunting amongst the US Marines in the Pacific theater.
And if you are curious, my philosophy
is that rules of warfare are great, but only work if:
1) both sides agree to abide by them;
and 2) both sides use the same rule book. To put it into context,
while there are some commonalities between Clauswitz, THE BOOK OF 5 RINGS,
Sun-Tzu and other Oriental military philosophy types, there are some hell'uva
big differences between the way the goals are accomplished.
I think most of what I hit on is minor, and probably comes from a classic issue of when you do macro-history, some folks see certain small events as important, and others don't.
Off to snow shoveling, MEH
