Although Japan traded with the Dutch for years, not everyone knows of them to any extent, and stereotypes and rumors have formed throughout Japan.
This idea makes sense as people can often misperceive about other people such as the way that has happened throughout history with people traveling and then misunderstanding can lead to misunderstandings
Bashō, as he travelled, recorded his experiences. Each time he reached one of his stops he would write a poem and draw a small picture. Bashō’s poetry is one of the first examples of the new form of Haiku. Of course, poetry had been written in the Japanese tradition for centuries however Haiku represented a new take on the tradition perhaps a different way of paying homage or meming. Haiku, 5 7 5 also necessarily mentions nature sometimes literally but oftentimes metaphorically. Bashō’s Haiku generally uses animals to embody the emotions of his journey.
I find Haiku to be interesting as it has a certain juxtaposition that does not seem to make sense, yet it works. The idea of combining linguistics with math. The idea of 5 7 5 always confused me especially with the idea of having to be picture edited perfect with the amount of syllables.
Around 400 years ago, since the arrival of the Dutch to the great islands of Japan, there have been a lot of developed beliefs and anonymous events. Japanese people had a unified belief towards all Europeans, and they believed that Europeans were lower in status than the Japanese. Due to Japan’s isolation and great pride that was established through Samurai teachings and meditation, they were not connected with the rest of the world and they believed to be much more advanced than westerners and Europeans.
Well, in this idea I believe that this in concept is true when you said that, "Japanese people had a unified beliefs towards all Europeans, and they believed that Europeans were lower in status than the Japanese" (1). This claim could be true but what I think is the idea that Japan had kind of inherited from its early influences (kind of like how a social circle can influence you) - I say this because this is reminiscent of the Chinese system of their needing to be someone to bow down to and someone to respect, in Japan's history they had to respect China and that became the notion of their system, based on respect and authority similar to China. However, I do believe that they could have believed that they were more advanced than the Westerners and Europeans.
Due to the fact that Europe was a Christian continent back in the end, the Portuguese and English merchants brought Christianity to Japan and started explaining the religion to Japanese people. However, Japan’s societal system was influenced by Buddhist values and beliefs for many cultural reasons which led to Christianity not being accepted as was expected by European leaders.
This idea is interesting, though I believe that if we were to reverse the idea and Japan were to bring Buddhist ideas over to the West, would they have a similar reception that the west had on Japan? It's an interesting thought experiment as the similarity of both situations would be the promotion of different values, beliefs, then one had seen before. Though the main appeal of Christianity was the firearms I believe -- was this before the idea of isolationism in Japan, or after?
Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. In class, we went over some of the implications of the laws that various Daimyo passed in their territories. It was interesting to me that so much attention was paid to seemingly minute details; it reminds me of the sort of extremely strict discipline present in modern professional armies. Although it might seem like an obvious point to make, the strictness of the ordinances implies to me the desperation of the conflicts that engulfed Japan during the period. Strict rules, many of which seem to promote readiness among those who are affected by them, seem like very good ways of bringing one’s army to peak fighting readiness.
I did find Nobunga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu to be interesting as well - though to be honest when it came to reading the strict rules, it, to me seemed like the recurring symbol that we have seen in Japanese history from Prince Shokotu up to now, except here these laws were more central to the militant place where Japan was at the time, where it became not only a sense of honor but these law kept people from finding loopholes and kept a certain rigidity to it all - a for the three conquerers this was interesting to me because conquers are generally interesting such as Napoleon, Khan, Caesar, etc except in this case these three were helped in the unification of Japan which is important in its history, before it was a puzzle of tribal states but it was getting nearer and nearer to where we know it to be today
Torres and Valignano seem to think that just because they aren’t seeing/hearing of Japanese people expressing negative emotions, then that means it must not be happening at all. This is shortsighted because they has not considered that different cultures express their emotions in different ways, and that perhaps these sentiments have been expressed and they just didn’t have the cultural context to understand what was being communicated.
This point is true about the shortsightedness from Torres and Valignano, though the reason I highlighted this quote wa because of the interesting idea that stuck out to me: though in this case, this was specific to Torres and Valignano, in human nature I am curious about how shortsightedness can appear more than in just this situation: The idea of people thinking something and not something which was in this case of Torres and Valignano exploring the politeness as some sort of justification to rule out emotions, yet this idea can be translated to any point in human history, in this case Japan is the most successful but there can be other situations where politeness is the cloak of the truth that is hiding within the person's head - this concept was interesting to me for that reason, though this case displays the shortsightedness of foreigners, it also shows the shortsightedness of humans if they cannot read each other well and come up with assumptions, even if they are from the same culture and share the same language, it is the social part which intrigues me
One artform we didn’t look at in class but I have found myself interested in lately is that of bonsai. Did you know that any tree can be bonsai? It isn’t a specific type of tree! Bonsai again involves the idea of finding beauty in the natural world. In this case bonsai trees are also a practice in mindful attentiveness as it requires one to trim and shape a tree. One must have a vision for the tree and patiently cut and shape the branches so that it conforms to that vision. In most instances a bonsai should have a wide base with large roots that taper as it goes up. The branches should form a triangular shape. By limiting the space of the tree to grow i.e a small pot, the tree will stay its miniature size.
I did not realize any tree can be Bonsai, I thought that like Oak, Cherry, Vine, Birch, etc Bonsai was a tree where the Bonsai was some sort of etymology or signified what the tree was -- that is interesting, as this may be confirming the ideas earlier stated with the two ideas of Wabi and Sabi along with holding Beauty in the moment, the fact that the Bonsai can be any tree makes it's have the same fluidity and identity of Mono No Aware philosophy I think/believe
I think that Japan is a really interesting case study in history in general, where a lot of countries with their tumultuous pasts will have an entire nation devoted to war and therefore not leaving all that much room for anything else, Japan allowed for artistic expression through these times, making for artistic development that can be traced through centuries. It is nice how Traditional Japanese aesthetics have lasted the test of time and are becoming more “trendy” now, so to speak, while still carrying its character.
This is a good/interesting point I have not thought about this but this is true -- when I think of war I as well think of things burning and the whole place being consumed by war; but it is impressive how Japan was able to still flourish in this time of warfare
I enjoyed learning about Zen because in the West it has become a fad and never really knew what it was. With Zen having a focus on relying on your own power for enlightenment I can understand why people gravitate towards this. What I found interesting and confusing about the practice of Zen is the practice of what they say is pointless until sudden enlightenment. What was confusing to me is the enlightenment found although this can not be explained but only felt.
I agree with this idea and would like to add onto this idea: In this course I can't help but wonder what would happen if the West did not adopt the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, (and the Middle East did not adopt Islam) and if we were surronded instead by ideas such as Mono No Aware, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism --> How would our society be different today? Of course the "East" and "West" have their fascinations with each other but neither can particularly master the imitation of another as an American restaurant that sells Japanese food is not as good as Japanese food in Japanese, the same would apply with American food in Japan -- there is a fascination and both become close which is why we would have a "fad" yet we cannot touch into the authenticity of each other's culture
Conlan takes issue with the the magnitude of the Mongol army commonly represented in contemporary literature as well as the overemphasized role of Kamikaze a typhoon or divine wind which is purported to have ruined a mongol fleet of ships. Conlan’s critical method involves looking at the premises of these common narratives to see if he can spot any inconsistencies. To him, had there been as many Mongol soldiers as is reported, the logistical feat would have rivaled that of the attack on Normundy in WWII, something that just doesn’t seem feasible to him.
This idea is fascinating to me about the truth of how many people there could have been in history and in this moment, on one hadn't Conlan's logic does seem to make sense though I can't help but question his questioning. I say this because while on one hand it does seem logical that the Mongol army would not be as much as that of Normandy, there are other factors to consider. It seems logical to believe that in WWII that there are more people who inhabit the family due to the idea that time has progressed. However, my idea more derives the ideas about war and disease. Before WWII there was WWI, the Balkan War, and other wars in the mid to late 1800s. Around this time, though there were many wars that the Mongol had, we cannot forget that they also had this system with the hostages to murder the rest and train the remaining under their wing. Now, am I saying Conlan is wrong? No, he is probably right, but if we consider the fact that humans have been in wars throughout civilization (even to present day) it makes us wonder how far off the population sizes would be, which is what my question is to Conan's probably right analysis.
Over time the Mongol empire began to lose power and status among the invaded countries. The split weakened the Mongol empire and made it more vulnerable to people that wanted to restore power to their countries’ governments.
I find this idea to be interesting as this idea permeates even today, or could be used as a framework for the rise and falls of other countries. To me this idea brings out the essential question, "What leads a country to become powerful?" or on the other hand, "What leads a country to fall?" As historians, it is often easy to see the trends that could have led to a revolution, or an overthrowing or some sort of trend because it's like being in a game show and the answer is only obvious once it is said out loud by the person asking the questions the answer has already been written. These ideas would be useful to consider in the present, as there are leaders all throughout the world and these ideas are still important today as it would be useful to understand how these tides change.
It says a lot about many countries’ belief in their own histories and their “divine rights”, as many horrid actions have been justified by these ideas.
This idea is fascinating to me as this idea of "divine rights" has been used a lot in history to justify certain things such as the Manifest Destiny of America to go West as they were the New "Israel" and how people have a skewed version of God in order to further a point or idea even today or back in the past to conquer the known world. Divinity is often used as a justification because it is an unlikely pair, countries and people make the divine rights sound like a mentor told them to which is childish but since divinity and religion is important people take that seriously.
This is where we arrive to the purpose of Buddhism throughout this chapter in particular. The idea that good deeds will always come back around to give you support. While the initial fallout of Gio wishing to allow Hotoke to dance was of course detrimental to her life, it led to Gio to live her days out as a Buddhist monk, where she was eventually met by a sorry Hotoke who wishes to follow in her pious footsteps feeling terrible for her newfound position. Because Gio was truly in line with Buddhist teachings, she is now able to truly reach the pure land.
This part really intrigues me because it reminds me of the idea of a fable, where these stories are meant to be a learning curve for whoever reads them, there is a lesson stored throughout the story, such as The Tortoise and The Hare where the lesson is "Slow and Surely wins the race!" Which is essentially talking about how discipline is better than motivation as the Tortoise has the discipline of slow improvement while the Hare has the motivation of a bright light that shines rare improvement. I bring this up, because in this way, this story reaffirms to Buddhism to all of it's readers, and while at the time I assume many believed in Buddhism, this is meant to strengthen that belief.
I think it is easy for people who are so far removed from the original events to forget the humanity of the people in history, especially the villain. So, it was refreshing to see a different approach to make people stop and think about what actually happens when there is a conflict amongst people.
This idea really stood out to me, more so because of how this applies to the very notion of how and why we are taught history and what differences we are taught around the world. This idea took out to me because of how this applies to modern history today, when reflecting upon World War I, World War II, The Cold War, etc. This also reminds me of the idea of the politician's scapegoat where if something is going wrong in society, instead of taking accountability they find someone or something to blame and I bring this up because in war, the main idea is propaganda, nationalism, and strategy. However, in this one that you mentioned they are very kind to their enemy because at the end of the day, their enemy is still human when it is often easier to view an enemy as not that, they took the higher ground by still seeing the humanity in their enemy which I believe dissipated throughout the 20th and beginning of 21st century wars though now I think we try (to a degree I don't know) to be mindful that the citizens are not our enemy but happen to be in a difficult crossroads.
I was surprised by how the book actually depicts combat in depth and actually describes the battlefield, such as a fiction/action book I would read right now. I also liked the intro of the tale as a poem. I felt like the poem intro was interesting and sets forward the themes and tone for the book, although I can not right now put my tongue on what those themes are. Maybe the inevibility of death amongst tones of darkness and war?
I found the ending of this idea to be the most intriguing as it almost reminded me of the Mono No Aware philosophy that everything is temporary, and that the darkness of death, decay, and war will pass as will many people will pass but it is not in vain; it is to admire the life they led similar to how Cherry Blossoms are admired for their short lived life. Going higher up in the paragraph, I think that the importance of showing the in depth battle in such a different way in an action book is because both use the same ideas but implement them differently. While I'm not completely sure, I believe the written account of the events would be used as proof that they occurred while in something like an action book, the war itself is the main focus as the excitement and fear of war is trying to be inhaled by the action book while this account is more used scientifically, as something that is proof. The action book would probably use the action of war itself to be it's main focus to capture the action occurring, and therefore leave out as much detail as they want to focus on the adrenaline, not the depth of what happened, they want to transfer emotion while these writings want to convey the facts.
How are they so successful with all their setbacks? How could they reduce the erosion issue?
I liked reading your post. Your questions in particular struck me about how Japan could be so successful despite the climate and environmental issues. It’s a good question. I wonder if their geographical restrictions forced them to focus on developing advanced technologies and rules. For example I heard from my dad (who is half Japanese and lived in Japan for a few years) that Japan has the strictest building codes which makes buildings strong enough to withstand earthquakes. Unlike what happened in Turkey. Also maybe it was their lack of natural resources that also made them focused on manufacturing electronics and cars which made their economy stronger.
he cultivation of rice along with a diet heavily dependent on fish logically leads to a society which is relatively fit and healthy even into these modern times, leading to an engaging contrast between the history of Japan’s diets and the diets of a society I am more familiar with such as in the US. I found these readings fascinating and they allowed me to create a basis which I hope will better put in context future readings which I am excited for.
I also thought your comments about the first reading were insightful and summarized well some of the key points the author makes about Japan's geography. You noted how the cultivation of rice and a historical diet rich in fish led to a society that remains relatively healthy and fit even in modern times. Do you think this will change/already has changed given the influence of Western culture (including introduction of Western foods) in Japan?
There is no real quantitative way to tell in my opinion, which brings us to the other reading
I think you highlight some really good points about the second reading and how the author raises some thoughtful questions about pre-industrial and industrial societies. I was interested in your comment that in your opinion there is no quantitative way to tell what makes a society a society, and what makes a society industrial. Do you think there is a qualitative way to do so? If so, what qualitative factors do you think are most important?
i think this focus on the science of the land is very interesting. its not something that immediately springs to mind when i think of a history class, but it is definitely worth studying because understanding the land is key to learning the how and why of people living in that environment.
I am also fascinated by how geography impacts how a society develops and sustains itself. It reminds me of Jared Diamond’s idea that the geography of the land can help shape the people living there and give certain advantages or disadvantages depending on the location of where people are; such as how the climates affect how people had to adapt. It is amazing that Japan has become such a successful country given its geography.
Of course, some countries saw the invention of many myths that tried to help understand the history of many different things.
About the idea that myths can help make a confusing world less confusing, what is the main difference you see between mythology and a formal religion?
he main Japanese artifacts that shaped the history of this country lie in pottery. The oldest pottery in Japan dates back to 16,000 years ago
I really liked your succinct recap of what we covered in class this week. You note how one of the many Japanese artifacts is pottery. Why do you think that is? What do you think that shows us about Japanese history? In my anthropology class I have been learning about how artifacts can help historians what a society values as beautiful, teaching us about culture, trading, the economy, politics, the arts, and technological advances of the time and society.
Although the article was extremely short and vague, it was a good source in order to get a quick introduction to who Queen Himiko was.
Regarding the Queen Himiko article, it sounds like you thought the article you read was "short and vague". That being said, you noted that it was "a good source". Do you think the article was well written and reliable? Do you think that it is possible for an article to be short and vague but also a reliable source of information?
The Chinese concepts of court hierarchy with official ranks and governors, road systems, population registers, and taxing, inspired the social and political system of Japan
I thought this was a very well written post with a lot of intricate details. You mentioned the influence of various Chinese systems on Japanese society but you also noted the Korean immigrants of Japan. Why do you think Japan chose to be inspired by the Chinese systems as opposed to the Korean ones?
For so long I have thought of myths as simple stories passed down throughout history for generations in the future to remember their ancestors and roots. But through reading the Japanese creation myths I realized just how much deeper myths can truly go, sometimes in unfortunate and negative ways.
I really enjoyed diving deeper into the question that we had had during class about why we are learning about myths in a history class, especially since myths are usually fiction compared to history which is meant to be non-fiction. I also found it intriguing that you and I would technically agree that myths are simple stories from the past made to identify why things exist, and I too have rarely considered the deeper meaning of myths as of late. I guess we learn about myths in history class because a myth can show a lot about a society’s social norms, what it means to be a citizen in that society, and how idols represented in myths can help influence behaviors.
This relationship would also lead to a great deal of migration to Japan by Koreans.
You also note about the Korean immigration to Japan and how they brought Chinese cultural and political systems. Why do you think that so many Koreans immigrated to Japan?
These philosophies would provide the basis for Japans first governmental doctrine, prince Shotoku’s constitution. Calling the document a constitution is contentious as it isn’t binding in the sense of the American constitution. Nevertheless it provided a basis for the development of a centralized state. T
I agree with your comment that it is contentious to call Prince Shotoku's document a "constitution". For me, it seemed more like morals that parents/elderly people should teach their kids about society in order to differentiate right and wrong, but the rules were too vague to be laws and came across more as guidance.
This first article in particular stands out to me as it seems accepts the fact that there is and will inevitably be disorder. There will be disagreements amongst subjects.
Regarding your comment that the underlying state of things is disorder, I do not disagree. Perhaps the difference between America and Japan is how they deal with that. In America we have laws and systems that are designed to create order. Japan does too, but I believe there is a greater emphasis on values (in addition to formal laws and systems) - as evidenced, as you note, by Prince Shotoku's document - and perhaps that helps explain why there is relatively less crime and more harmony in Japanese society compared to America.
When we look at our modern day American political landscape I can only think of one word to describe it: that being divided. I could hardly believe that there ever will or even could be perfect harmony among the ruling parties of the United States. Constantly at one another’s throats until the other capitulates to the whims of the victor. That is why, it is so interesting and unendingly stupefying that Japan has been able to exist for as long as it has, with only one ruling governmental body.
I like the way you distinguish between division in contemporary American politics and the relative stability of government in Japan, and in that regard draw a connection to article one of Prince Shotoku's documents. Is it true, however, to say that Japan has existed with only one ruling governmental body? Although I agree that we heard about the long lineage of the Japanese Imperial family and they myth of how they trace that back to the Sun God, my understanding is that there have been long periods in Japanese history where the Emperor was not the ruler (for example a long period of warring among different regions of Japan, rule by Shogunates, and even in modern times a democratic form of government with multiple political parties).
As a result, I got a deeper look at the interaction between Japan and the continent, especially Korea.
I thought this was well written, I especially liked the way you went in depth to explain why the Japanese were involved in Korea and why there was such an influx of Korean immigrants to Japan. I also agree with your comments about Prince Shotoku's document, as I also thought it was more like guidance than laws. You noted how it was an attempt to document Confucian ideas into Japan in a "fully Japanese way". I would be interested in hearing more about what you mean by that, and how the "Japanese way" made the document more in the nature of guidance instead of law. Relatedly, why do you think the Reform Edicts of Taika were written in such a different manner, more like laws?
This week, we looked at the Nara period, where Japanese rulers began to settle in one consistent capitol and embraced Buddhism. One of the interesting features of the Nara period was that the rulers continued to stay in one city; the most interesting part about that for me is why they had not done that in the first place. I am aware that the most obvious reason is the religious/superstitious issue about not wanting to be where the ghost of the last ruler was, but I wonder if there was any more pragmatic reason to keep moving. It strikes me that moving capitols would necessarily be an expensive process, and would mean that temples and palaces could not be improved over many decades. With these apparent drawbacks, why bother moving the capitol so much? I do not think that I have the information to suggest any other educated answers than the one of getting away from the death of the past ruler, but I would be interested in finding out if any (credible) theories do exist. The only possible (and extremely superficial) reason that I would suggest is that it does effectively convey the wealth of the rulers. Spending all of the funds that it would take to build the new capitol, along with raising all of the corvee labor that would also be required could be a good way to present one’s power to one’s subjects.
I like the question that you raise about why Emperors/Leaders did not have a consistent location for the Empire. With this in mind, I would like to consider if back then could be considered more tumultuous than today or if each Emperor wanted a sense of individual rule that they may have changed their empire’s location? I liked the questions that you raised about what it meant for the Emperor’s to have fully embraced Buddhism, whether it meant that it affected their ruling style or if they became Monks. This reminds of the same way that Roman/Greeks (I forget, I think Romans) took on the ideas of Stoicism as they ruled. One example of this was Marcus Aurelius and how he was both a Stoic and an Emperor. I believe that the Emperor’s can have multiple identities at once, and embody those multiple identities through not only leading their country but through other aspects of their life, such as how they act.
Just thinking about the Great Schism and how much war/pain/suffering can come about from different interpretations of original source material shows how chill the Buddhists can be.
I like the comparison between Buddhism compared to the Great Schism to exemplify how relatively calm (or harmonious) Buddhism is compared to say, (Christianity as with the Schism comparison) where multiple sub-factions can coexist in Buddhism but how that is feeble in other religions to try and have multiple beliefs at the same time. Though the Kekai stories may not have been as swaying, I think that I would agree that the fear of missing out would be dire, but also back then without all the stimulation phones (or whatever hobbies/interests people have) the one thing that may be convincing are these myths that radiate the imagination of our brains. I liked the questions about the timelessness of art such as reading poetry, Shakespeare, and Locke which was asking, just what makes these artifacts/antiques of the past have such a lingering effect on today’s society?
One of the aspects of Buddhism that stood out to me this week was the “Four Noble Truths” and the idea of Karma.
The four noble truths also stood out to me as well, as the idea of suffering is an interesting topic especially with the way that it is viewed in Buddhism: that attachment/desire is the root of all suffering and that in order to eradicate oneself from suffering they must reach Nirvana. If suffering is designed to be by the stuff we hold dear such as the material things/other things, would that mean that something such as Hedonism would be a root for suffering? The idea that there’s a root to suffering I like that you brought up, I would like to ask should the solution be that people remove themselves from any attachment at all? About the idea of Karma, would that be able to be compared to the Chinese moral ranking system which can rank people based off of social credit depending on what they do as good or bad? In the idea that the moral standards of the society can affect the moral standings of the individuals who live in that society? I like how you rooted Buddhism’s origin back to India to where it spread to China and then Japan.
This reading which was the telling of the Japanese folk story “The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter,” focused on the idea on the Japanese idea of mono no aware, or the idea that we should find beauty in the passing of things.
I like the direct correlation that you made between the idea of impermanence with Mono No Aware in relation to the Bamboo cutter. I did not see the initial connection that you point out between that philosophy and the story of the Bamboo cutter. I thought that your post was very insightful as I had not considered this relation between the two, though one thing which I am still curious about, speaking about Mono No Aware, is how to value the impermanence of things? As you pointed out in your analysis, the Bamboo is a “cautionary tale” about the importance of the Mono No Aware to be in someone’s life, though I was wondering how someone would be able to embody that philosophy in another country than Japan? Do we have similar ideas over here or other parts of the world which allows us to value the beauty that we had, to not venomously hold onto things?
One thing about the story that I found really interesting was how the relationship between Japan and China was depicted.
I have also really enjoyed the short stories that we have read recently, I have found them to be very interesting as well. I like the connection that you made between China and Japan as so far in this course I feel that in terms of historical context China has been the condescending (yet oddly also inspirational) older sibling to Japan, and only recently has Japan began to gain a real sense of identity, I would even go as far to say that this is the “teenage” phase in Japanese history where they are gaining their own identity and looking at their older sibling with new fresh ideas, not as idealistic as before but also willing to bloom with inspiration, art, science, etc. I like the last idea that you mentioned about loving short poetry as in the past I used to be a very quantitative writer, believing that the words were the money I can store in my intellectual bank but this idea is more along the lines of “Less is More” and Mono No Aware, where we are meant to value what we have while we have it, and instead of holding onto that first rush, to experience that rush over and over again.
This week in class, we reviewed and went over how to use the application Zotero, learned more about the writing systems, and further reviewed the different readings that were assigned this week
I thought it was intriguing that you talked about Zotero, in the first two paragraphs as usually when I write the posts I forget to consider the in-class lessons but more focus on a heliocentric idea and write around that idea as if it’s the sun. Do you fully understand how to use Zotero? I may have to go back and check how much I remember if I know how to use Zotero. How did “The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter” and “Minister Kibi’s Adventures In China” help you understand the political and social structures at the time along with the beliefs that they held?
Because Mirisaki Shikibu was concerned with giving a somewhat accurate representation of courtlife, we can glean much about Heian society through The Tale of Genji.
I liked how you mentioned how the author of the Tale of Genji used inspiration to write the novel, and therefore there is this idea of perceived “respect”/”honor” which reminded me of World War II and how the Japanese were the last fighting due to these very same ideas which permeated all the way back then with respect and honor, it was only after the debatable idea to drop the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did the Japanese forfeit the war. However, this idea also seems to permeate through this week, with the Emperor being more of a figurehead than someone who can actually wield any power. I can’t help but wonder, was this idea true when the events of World War II happened as well, where the Emperor had to roll along with what the provincial government decided to do? Though I think you also bring up the idea of status within court culture, as Genji is interested in a woman that he seems “to good for”, which show that even though there was such a divide between those in the courts and those working the fields and paying taxes, that there were also levels of higher court members and lower court members in this culture that was was in addition to the proletariat (working class) members of Japan. Yet, on an even greater level, I believe that this idea of separating the court culture within the highs and lows of status would eventually lead to what we talked about his week, with the court eventually having a military branch meant to defend from the Tang Dynasty (just in case) and that these military members are related to the first Emperor, but they are too far removed for any court power but too royal to be a working class, so they split the divide to essentially create a middle/upper middle class of society. This was an early sign of that trait/division of court power which is why I think it is important that you pointed it out.
I believe that Murasaki Shikibu is commentating on just how absurd these men sound when speaking on the intricacies of love and courting a woman.
When talking about how unrealistic the men’s idealistic women would be, this couldn’t help but remind me of the present day. Though this idea is being somewhat challenged there is still photoshop and social media which create these false identities of women in order to appeal to the male gaze, yet similar to how Genji and his friends talking about their ideal woman are all single and sharing in their loneliness, I imagine that it would be for the same in modern day. Where this talking is the boredom and loneliness of the court men who, having nothing else to do distract themselves with the idealism of unrealistic people and loves who they will never meet, but it distracts them from the other aspects of their life that they don’t particularly want to be thinking about. I agree with your conclusion that women at this time were probably seen as an extra status symbol or some sort of inhumane idea (considering how later on they became betrothed to Emperor’s by the Fujiwara, probably without a say in the matter, they were tools to keep the Fujiwara in power by becoming Mothers of future Emperor’s). As for your earlier claim that this is similar to High School because of the gossip, I can totally see that, as gossip seems to be the only entertainment other than the Shinto myths (are they still getting taught?) or teachings of the Buddha that the court life would be one big High School, all trying to swarming with ideas of how to become or influence the “jock” (Emperor) but all we hear is buzzing from a nest far far away, where the only honey they have made has already been pollinated for them generations prior which is even why they are allowed to be high schoolers in the court life. What else can they do? The court life is all about power not through the sword, but through the pen, the vocal cords, and the subtle poisons in people’s drinks.
Thinking back to what we have already learned, I think it is really cool how gender roles were very much included in the basis of Japanese religion, yet they internalize it much differently than how the U.S internalizes our founding ideas. It is crazy to me that a female writer could get this much momentum and have such a long lasting impact on culture, while the U.S still seems to struggle with the idea of women being culture creators
I first like the comparisons that you drew between the U.S and Japan when it comes to the approach of female writers as it seemed reminiscent of how the U.S only created the 19th Amendment in 1920 which seems to reflect the judgments mentioned about female writers. Also, the comparison between religion is an interesting one as yes, both the U.S and Japan have religious undertones the way that they deal with those undertones may be shaped by the religion itself along with the individuals who convince the public using religion as a basis for being correct. About the idea of the male’s ideal woman, the part that I was most curious about was whether these ideas would trickle down to the non-court men by accident? By exposing the court men for their idealistic and unrealistic ideas of who and what a woman should be I wonder if this idea was already permeating through Japan or if the Tale Of Genji led for other men to model themselves out of these fictional characters as though I can’t think of an example as of this moment, doesn’t things that start up in “high society” trickle down (not like the failed trickle down economy, but what I mean is that before Cars were for everyone, first the rich (equivalent to the court of Heian life) and then to everyone. I am essentially wondering if these ideas were widespread among Japanese men before the Tale of Genji or if the Tale of Genji gave Men an inspiration of Court Life, and in order to act more important/high and mighty if they too, would have copied the Tale of Genji men to be more like court members. I wonder if the court members would have enjoyed the Tale of Genji as to me it reminds me that it would almost be like fictional tabloids which often had psychological effects on celebrities and royalty like Princess Diana and Britney Spears – would they have enjoyed being exposed in this way? I imagined the commoners would be fascinated with this story the same way that we humans buy tabloids or read gossip about the rich/famous instead of the rich/famous reading inserted characters about themselves?
This was until I remembered when I did Karate as a kid, and the fact that they taught us, for some wild reason, our own phone numbers, politeness, etc. etc. as if it were just important as the actual self-defense training we were doing. I remember one time when I was 13ish I went to a class and made a mild joke about the teacher, a funny one at that, but he punished me more severely than if I messed up a move or kata. This, I thought, was ridiculous, but I think the point of that punishment was to one, make an example of me, but two, to make sure that I understood that the character building aspect of the class was important. Of course, I would never truly take this to heart, but eh. That’s what I was reminded of.
This reminded me of my own youth - I also practiced karate for many years, and part of every class was a lesson in how to behave - whether being polite, respectful, avoiding violence, etc. It was more than just learning the forms (the "kata"), but also how to be a good member of society.
I think that the fact that samurai are so honor bound and that the practice of the bushido has survived for so long is really interesting, as though that a lot of the enactment of being a samurai was not so much the warrior aspect, but a philosophy and a way to go about life.
I agree I also found that very interesting. I like the way you phrased it as a "philosophy and way of life." In a sense, being a samurai, and bushido, seemed like Buddhism in terms of being more about how to live life versus just how to be a warrior.
Some may question how a society so intertwined with Bhuddist ideals could ever rationalize the fighting that would ensue. To that I would answer that just as we might have noticed court jealousy and superficiality in our own lives, desire for power is equally a characteristic of human society in of itself. That is to say I think perhaps such strife was inevitable. Perhaps because of these Bhuddist ideals there was less infighting than otherwise would have occurred, but nonetheless so long as there are vacuums or weaknesses in power, some will seek to fill that void.
I thought this analysis was interesting. In other words, you think that without the influence of Buddhist ideals, there would have been more conflict? And that in any society - no matter how much value is placed on harmony and peacefulness - conflict is inevitable?
Nonetheless, I am quite curious why during this time the emperor did not try to consolidate his powers?
Good question. I was also curious as to why the emperor didn't try to consolidate his powers. Couldn't he have tried to make an alliance with the Minamoto or Taira clans? I wonder why he wasn't able to do that?