Session 7 - Sam Yamashita, 11/3 morning

[Margaret Siryj]

I agree with you, Lindsay.  The development of the Japanese military is quite impressive.  Dr. Dube's presentation slide that reflected the warship increase in tonage demonstrated explosive growth.  Not only was their military growth impressive at the beginning of the twentieth century, but it reveals their strong sense of economic development.  The Japanese were not only committed to development, but the growth  displayed a sense of resilency from these people.  During WWII, Japanese were stereotyped and looked down upon by other countries, including the United States, but to their credit impressive growth ensued.  Now, United States and Japan are strong allies and no longer adversaries.

[Mario Galindo]

I have seen the black and white footage for decades. The enormous mushroom clouds, the Zeros dropping blasts that lifted debris and grey smoke into the lens of documentarian’s cameras. FDR at the dais “infamous” and having “nothing to fear”. Yet, after all that, I still had no clue of the idiosyncratic details of any of it.

After reading “The Holding of US-Japan Negotiations” by Moriyama Atsushi I still gave no clue. People do what they do for their own reasons, and the more one knows of these reasons, the more difficult it is to understand humanity. The historical accounts and expert analysis make it clear that war, politics and power are unpredictably human and unforgiving for both sides.

A third side is the presentation of history and all its nebulousness to students. The right/wrong, black and white world of dilemma-less existence leaves the class discussion in a truly difficult space of insecurity and potentially inevitable fear of the world. How can people—human beings—behave in this way?

After years of teaching dogmatic be-good-do-the-right-thing presentation it feels as if it is almost better to not know—as an adult I mean. How must it feel like as a 21st Century student beginning life?

I have always been intrigued by history. Why? I don’t know. This post and experiencing “East Asia after 1800” has forced me to ask myself this question on a deeper, almost philosophocal, sense. Am I placing myself in an nonexistent world were my flash forward privilege makes me hindsight safe? Am I grateful in knowing that if I was born 100 years before I would not be writing this because of all kinds of frighteningly horrific scenarios?

Either way, what do Pearl Harbor and Japanese-US relations mean to our Trump era, immigrant bashing, Pop Culture obsessed existence? While I can try to justify, or make some sense of my answers, I really have no clue. As a lover of history I am grateful for knowing, yet . . .

I really have no clue.

[Mario Galindo]

From this session the one fascinating thing was how the influence of the West in many ways made East Asia what it became (and is now in the 21st century). I was completely ignorant of this: how studying the West, studying its culture, imperialistic tendencies, at its schools, and, in a way, regurgitating back what they learned, made East Asia successful in war, trade, and cultural influence. An almost perefect appropriation by being excellent students. A frightenenly historic example of "reaping what they sow" and "careful what you ask for" melded into one for the West a few decades in the making. Incredible! 

[Kim Leng]

Professor Yamashita’s lecture peaked my interest immediately when he asked the question, “Why was Perry’s flotilla in Japanese waters on 7/8/1853?” He contextualized three main reasons for Perry’s visit: profit, progress, and military power.  With these reasons, the west forced Japan to open up its ports, and set the stage for the “Five Main Actors.”  I think providing a history lesson using this method of contextualizing an event with various main historical characters can make history come alive.  The lecture felt like a play in three acts with background information about the state of the Tokugawa Regime and the Euro-American View of the world in 1850s.  In the case of Profit, Perry’s flotilla in Japanese waters sought to open Japan’s port for market.  The industrial revolution brought vast changes to the west.  There’s steam power and faster machinery.  The west viewed themselves as “civilized.”  I think the quote that Professor Yamashita displayed for us regarding the Euro-American View of the world in 1850s provides the reason for Perry’s flotilla:

 

“The compulsory seclusion of the Japanese is wrong not only to themselves, but to the civilized world…The Japanese undoubtedly have an exclusive right to the possession of their territory; but they must not abuse that right to the extent of debarring all other nations from a participation in its riches and virtues. The only secure title to property, whether it be a hovel or an empire, is the exclusive possession of one is for the benefit of all.”

                                    Edinburgh Review, October 1852

 

This view stated in the Edinburgh Review provided the west with their view of the world.  The Japanese must not be allowed to stay in isolation.  It’s not only “wrong to themselves, but to the civilized world.”  Could it be that the west will use their “civilized” view points when it profits them to do so? 

[Christine Moguel]

I am as well, astonigished at ther ate in which the Japanese military exponentially grew in the 19th century.  This in turn creating a large echo areound the world as to the presence and importance of this small Asian cluster of islands off the Pacific as a force to be reckoned with.  I beleive it is their determination in achieving the high skill level in military arms that really gave them the focus and confidence to rise as the leading technological innovators of the 21st centruies.  The fact that they were able to rise in military power against all odds gave them the confidence to continue to grow with the times and understand the the power had transfered over to technology and innovation in the 21st century.  

[Sophia Kang]

I also enjoyed Professor Yamashita's holistic perspective of the events leading to the war that we know so well in America. I had not considered the strong relationships between profit and territoriality. The question you asked--"Could it be that the west will use their "civilized" viewpoints when it profits them to do so?" might be an essential question I would like to address to my class, or even extend it to "Could it be that oppressors will use their "civilized" viewpoints when it profits them to do so? and what factors determine if a person is civilized or not. How does this have an impact on other oppressed groups as well? It would be an interesting topic for an ethnic studies class to discuss the effects that the oppressed have on other oppressors. 

[Kathryn Sutherland]

Having been closed off for over 200 years, it is truly incredible to me that we attribute the opening of Japan to the western world to one man, Commodore Perry.  Would history be entirely different if he hadn't made it to Japan? Or was the Meiji Restoration bound to happen one way or another? Being closed off from the majority of the world for so long, Japan realized how far behind they were in miliary power and industry, and took steps to open themselves up, eventually becoming an imperial and then a world power.  These days, factions and some leaders around the world are trying to close themselves off to the rest of the world; 150 years ago, the opposite case was true.  It seems pretty clear to me that opening borders, while creating new problems, leads to more political power, not less.  And after opening their ports, Japan rose to power quickly, defeating a western power for the first time by a non-western power when they defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese war.  Progress always comes with side effeccts, good and bad, but the progress made after being forced to trade with the US laid the foundations for Japan's emergence as a great power.  

[Kathryn Sutherland]

Let's not forget all the problems that faced the Meiji Restoration though! Too many leaders (132 in 1868); change from the old order to the new order left the question of what to do with the fuedal domains and the warrior stipens (turn them to prefectures and municipalities and create taxes, respectively); arguments over the meaning of restoration (the confucian rennovation, or the national learning return to antiquity?); resistance to the new government led by warriors in the south; political opposition from different political factions and the urban and rural disaffected; and the pressure to westernize leading to its own negative effects, like bankruptcy of farmers, immigration to the US and Hawaii by second sons and younger all had to be dealt with by the new government.  Dealing with thse problems was make or break for the new regime. 

[Kathryn Sutherland]

"A British observer was amazed at these new global links that the Civil War had brought to the fore. 'We have seen how potent and how quick,' he wrote, 'the effects of ‘price’ was in the most distant parts of the globe.'"

What an interesting article!  I don't think I've ever thought about the impact of the civil war on the global scale, and how our world really started to become smaller hudreds of years ago.  A resource like cotton is a great thermometer for how interconnected the globe was in the late 1860--we take for granted now that a scarcity in a part of the world that is far away will affect our consumerism here--we know it will.  But this must of been a such a new type of problem back then, one that had huge yet invisible implications. 

[Author]

Posts