HIEA 112 discussions and posts
1/6/2022 What are the long-term impacts that Hideyoshi’s edicts may have had upon social relations between ordinary people of different strata? For example, how do you think the directive that farmers no longer would be allowed to have weapons, impacted their day-to-day lives?
I think that the social relations between ordinary people of different strata could have been weakened due to Hideyoshi’s edicts. According to Hideyoshi’s edicts, any townspeople who aided in helping a military soldier would be punished as well. People had to become investigators and eyes for the government, ratting out others who seem to be helping soldiers who tried to live amongst townspeople. This would make townspeople wary of helping one another, and this also brought upon separation between individuals in a town because they could not trust one another fully to keep their secrets and wrongdoings. This weakened the bond and the social relations between individuals. Furthermore, farmers were not allowed to have weapons anymore under Hideyoshi’s edicts. This left farmers unable to protect themselves against other people in higher strata in society, who could manipulate and use strength against farmers for their own benefits. This could have further complicated and soured the relations between social strata.
1/1/2022 What were the new Meiji regime’s main priorities, judging from these founding documents? What problems do you anticipate in their implementation?
One of the new Meiji Regime’s main priorities was military affairs. The documents stressed the point about having a reserved and standing army. Without a strong standing and reserved army, they would not be able to defend themselves against foreign powers, which will leave them vulnerable. They would be forced to abide by international affairs and other country’s demands if they do not have the means to protect themselves. With a strong standing army to protect against other foreign powers, as well as reserved army for manpower, they will not be subjected to listen to other country’s demands if the demands are only beneficial to the other party. Another one of the main priorities that was mentioned in the documents was foreign relations. The documents stated that violent acts against tourists or foreigners are strictly prohibited unless otherwise stated because of the necessity to foster good international relations with other nations. They seem to also implement changes that resemble the ways of Western world, with the checks and balances and tax systems. One problem that I see with their regulations is the tax system. For the sake of making the process easier, they estimated taxes for individuals based on the land they own and the prosperity of the lands. However, such measures cannot always be accurate, and also, the wealthier, powerful families can use different means to own wealthy and prosperous lands without having to pay taxes. For instance, they can put the land in someone else’s name or other methods to avoid paying taxes for some lands.
1/13/2022 Share the most interesting think about the Iwakura Mission report — what surprised you most about the report’s characterization of the United States? What does Fujitani’s chapter tell us about the existence (or not) of a shared sense of nation in Japan in the early Meiji period?
The most interesting thing about the Iwakura Mission report that surprised me the most about the report’s characterization of the United States was their description about women and men. It was expected, but still surprising to see how the Japanese people were caught off guard when they saw the way men treated women in America. In America, men showed respect towards women in various ways, such as offering their seats and being sensitive towards women’s moods. Even though women could not be said to have equal rights as men during this time, the treatment towards women differed quite a lot compared to the way women were treated in Japan or many other countries. Fujitani’s chapter tells us the lack of unification in the nation of Japan in the early Meiji period. Though the individuals in Meiji period had more commonalities compared to those in the United States with their diversity, they still felt that they were more divided than a nation with people with different backgrounds.
1/18/2022
Why do you think states like to use the language of “protection” when they are enacting violent and extractive policies? Can you think of similar instances from other contexts?
I think states like to use the language of “protection” when they are enacting violent and extractive policies in order to mislead the oppressed group to think that the new policies are for their own good. If they do not use the language of “protection”, the violent and extractive policies can be faced with great opposition from the affected group because they are able to see that the policies are meant to harm them. This could lead to uprisings and rebellions, which would cost a lot of effort to stop, and even if the government did stop the rebellion, the oppressed group would become more wary of the government and their policies than before. Therefore, by using the language of “protection”, the states give the affected group a false impression and justification that the new policies are meant to be favorable for the group. This would lessen the objection and will enable the states to subtly, but surely, take control of the group.
1/20/2022
Why do you think so many people came out to protest against the government beginning in 1905? How significant do you think this action was in terms of political consciousness (think in relation to the moment we are living in right now)?
I think so many people came out to protest against the government beginning in 1905 because many individuals realized the oppressive nature of the government towards its own people. In the founding documents in the age of restoration in Japan, they stated that the government should be comprised of and include the opinions of commoners, as much as the higher authorities. However, throughout the years, the government seemed to work against people instead of for the people. The government insisted and collected great sum of taxes from individuals and seized property from landowners for various reasons, instead of bringing prosperity and peace for the people.
1/25/2022
How do you think the Hibiya Riots (1905) and the Rice Riots (1918) differed in their societal significance? Do you think the difference had anything to do with the primary actors involved?
The Hibiya Riots and the Rice Riots differed in that the Hibiya Riots united the people of Japan while the Rice Riots were caused by division of social classes in Japan. Caused by the Portsmouth Treaty of Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese government showed aggressiveness towards their own people instead of to the Western powers, and this led to the people of Japan fighting against the government. On the other hand, the Rice Riot was caused by the increasing prices of rice for the farmers and those living in poverty, while the rich and wealthy enjoyed the profits from such increase in prices. The increased prices led to the farmers and those of lower classes rebelling and causing a riot against the wealthy, upper classes.
1/27/2022
What do you think about the tenor of the historiography on Japan’s colonization of Korea and Taiwan, as being somewhat improved from the late 1910s because there was a shift from “military” to “cultural” rule? Do you buy this assessment?
I do not believe that Japan’s colonization of Korea and Taiwan was somewhat improved from the late 1910s because there was a shift from “military” to “cultural” rule. From 1910s until the colonization of Korea and Taiwan, there was a minor change that the Japanese government enabled and allowed the Koreans and Taiwanese to practice their culture, but the Japanese government, no doubt, still saw Koreans and Taiwanese as inferior to the Japanese. They believed that they were superior and treated the other ethnicities to be inferior to them, preventing their participation in Japanese activities or cultures at times.
2/1/2022
Why do you think Sonia Ryang selected the concept of homo sacer in order to make sense of the 1923 massacre of 6,000 Korean people living in mainland Japan by a combination of police and vigilantes? How does the notion of the “unsacrificeable Korean” help her make an argument about the nature of Japanese modernity?
I think Sonia Ryang selected the concept of homo sacer in order to make sense of the the 1923 massacre of 6,000 Korean people living n mainland Japan by a combination of police and vigilantes so that she could effectively explain how the Japanese felt that Koreans were outsiders that were not related or of the Japanese imperial line. The Japanese felt that Koreans were outsiders, and that they were inferior to them. With the term homo sacer, I think Ryang was trying to explain that the Japanese did not kill the Koreans after the Earthquake in 1923 due to the four reasons that researchers often try to explain the behaviors with. I think Ryang was trying to explain that the Japanese killed Koreans because they felt that they had the right, the sovereign power to kill them, and therefore, indulged themselves in having that power by massacring the Koreans. The notion of the “unsacrificeable Korean” helps her make an argument about the nature of Japanese modernity because this term implies that Koreans are not worthy enough to be a sacrifice. Their lives are not important and “good” enough to be sacrificed, and therefore, should be killed. This shows that because Koreans are not Japanese, and because they are not assimilated, they are not worthy to die for a greater cause.
2/3/2022
Discuss the jarring contrast between Ryang’s modernity and the one depicted by Tanizak in his novel. How do we reconcile the two?
The jarring contrast between Ryang’s modernity and the one depicted by Tanizak in his novel is the difference in their reaction to assimiliation. In Tanizak’s novel, he favors assimilation. He welcomes western views and cultures, with the individuals in his book immersing themselves in western cultures and ways. However, in Ryang’s writing, assimilation is resisted, and the Koreans fear being assimilated into Japanese culture, fearing that they would lose their individualism and their national identity as Koreans. This gives the Japanese a reason to inflict pain and violence against the Koreans.
2/10/2022
Why do you think mobilizing women for nation and empire-building, in particular, in the domestic sphere (the home, the family, motherhood) was so important for the state?
I think mobilizing women for nation and empire-building in the domestic sphere was important for the state because women are the main caretakers in families. As mothers, they stay and bond with their children, and they are the first teachers that the children have. The ideologies and political views that the mother teaches the children will affect the society as the children grow up with certain views taught by their mothers.
2/15/2022
What does Yoshida’s discussion of the way that the media’s reporting on the Nanjing Massacre downplayed its atrocities tell us about the role that non-state and non-military actors played in Japan’s total war?
The Nanjing Massacre was downplayed in its atrocities when the media reported the event, which shows the extent of the power of the government during this time. They were able to control the media to explain the situation in a way that the government approved. The non-state and non-military actors did not know that the event was downplayed, and they believed the media without a doubt, and therefore, they did not put in efforts to correct the wrong, since they were not even aware of the evil that happened.
2/22/2022
What is a spy? Do you think it is possible to be considered a “spy” as a colonial subject?
A spy is essentially an individual who is of a position of importance in a party and is able to retrieve important information about the party, but secretly passes such information to the opposing party and works for them. I think that it is very possible to be considered a spy as a colonial subject because every time some information gets out, the easiest scapegoat and group to blame such instances on would be the colonial subjects since they were colonized by the stronger nation against their will. The government is more willing to accuse them as well because they are not their citizens, and the citizens also find it easier to accuse them because of nationality mindset in which they do not want to blame their own.
2/24/2022
How does “Diary of a Housewife” complicate your understanding of the Japanese wartime experience? What does it reveal about the relationship between city and countryside?
In the “Diary of a Housewife,” we are able to see the shift in social status as the priorities and importance of certain roles shift during the Japanese wartime. In the city, people who are used to an average to luxurious lifestyle begin to suffer during the war due to lack of water, food, and other essential supplies for survival. Because it is during wartime, the careers that city people have are not deemed as important as the ones in the countryside, who farm and provide food. Therefore, the farmers and those in countryside become higher in status, and the city people want to marry in to a family in the countryside in order to rise in status during this time.
3/1/2022
Are you convinced by Dower’s argument in War Without Mercy that the Japanese and Allied forces expressed a great deal of racial animosity during the war, and that this drove its particularly high civilian casualty numbers?
I am convinced that the Japanese and Allied forces expressed a great deal of racial animosity during the war, which drove its particularly high civilian casualty numbers. It is not uncommon during this time that in part due to nationalism and personal opinions concerning superior ethnicities, individuals feel great animosity towards other ethnicities or races besides their own. It is highly possible that individuals, while at war, believed that they are the supreme race, and that others should be eliminated as much as possible, contributing to such high civilian casualty. This is not the first time that such instance happened, as Korean civilians were subjected to such deaths due to their ethnicities by Japanese earlier on.
1/3/2022
Considering the intense racial animosity that Dower outlines in his work, why do you think that the Japanese and US governments were so quick to see each other as allies? Do you think that this transition was as quick for ordinary people?
The Japanese and US governments were so quick to see each other as allies because they were looking at the big picture. Strategically, in order to contain the Communist regime from spreading, Japan was in a favorable position in terms of where it was located, and Japan received great military help and support from the United States, which enabled such alliance to form so quickly despite the racial animosity.
1/8/2022
Think about the previous discussion question. What questions are missing, considering Morris Suzuki’s description of how former colonial subjects were treated following surrender?
I think that questions concerning the differences in how the former colonial subjects and the citizens were treated following surrender. Were the former colonial subjects treated better or worse? What kinds of treatments were they subjected to, and what might possibly be the reasoning behind that?
