05-20-2020, 10:04 AM
** 20-May-2020 World View: Japan and the West
Yeah, there was lots of xenophobia prior to WW II. There was American
xenophobia directed at the Japanese, as you suggest.
Japanese xenophobia was largely directed at China, and that had been
going on for centuries. But it's not much different from the
three-way xenophobia in Europe among England, Germany and France that
had also gone on for centuries.
You may say, "Oh, but those Japanese colonized Korea for 50 years."
But then you'd have to think about the "Scramble for Africa," when
European countries competed with each other to colonize the different
parts of Africa. Japan was just doing what everyone else was doing.
Large scale colonization didn't really end until the 1960s, when it
finally fell out of fashion.
So if Japan wasn't a "Western" country prior to WW II, then neither
were Nazi Germany and other European countries.
When I was writing my book, I was determined to understand what was
going on with China's "Century of Humiliation" and "unfair treaties."
What I wanted to figure out why Japan also didn't suffer a "Century of
Humiliation," since they were treated in much the same way by the
West, including "unfair treaties."
The answer, I concluded, was that there was a fork in the road around
the year 1900, and China took one path and Japan took the other path.
The path that China took was the Boxer Rebellion, where they declared
economic war on the entire world, particularly on the West, and
declared all Western religions to be enemies of China. The path that
Japan took was to join the Anglo-Japanese alliance and sign the
Anglo-Japanese treaties, which made Japan part of the West,
diplomatically and economically.
From my book:
Not because the Japanese gave a shit about Naziism, but because
Japan's enemies were also Germany's enemies, including Britain, Russia
and America.
In my book, I quoted an article written by Bertrand Russell in 1922:
This is similar to some of the things that Chinese nationalists say
today -- and indeed what many leftists say today about America.
Japan entered a Fourth Turning generational Crisis era in 1926, and
became highly nationalistic and xenophobic after that. It was
particularly triggered by the Smoot-Hawley act. After that, Japan
invaded Manchuria (which, let's recall, was an invasion of China), and
began preparing for full-scale war with China.
(05-18-2020, 09:27 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > Ever since the Anglo-Japanese alliance and Anglo-Japanese treaties
> of the early 1900s, I actually think of Japan as being part of the
> "West."
(05-19-2020, 10:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > I could agree with the term, but not the date of the switchover.
> Japan remained autocratic, warlike and blatantly xenophobic until
> the cultural reboot at the end of World War II. Well, we were
> blatantly xenophobic too before that point. Japan was actually
> ahead of us for a while in switching to the racial part of the
> Information Age values.
Yeah, there was lots of xenophobia prior to WW II. There was American
xenophobia directed at the Japanese, as you suggest.
Japanese xenophobia was largely directed at China, and that had been
going on for centuries. But it's not much different from the
three-way xenophobia in Europe among England, Germany and France that
had also gone on for centuries.
You may say, "Oh, but those Japanese colonized Korea for 50 years."
But then you'd have to think about the "Scramble for Africa," when
European countries competed with each other to colonize the different
parts of Africa. Japan was just doing what everyone else was doing.
Large scale colonization didn't really end until the 1960s, when it
finally fell out of fashion.
So if Japan wasn't a "Western" country prior to WW II, then neither
were Nazi Germany and other European countries.
When I was writing my book, I was determined to understand what was
going on with China's "Century of Humiliation" and "unfair treaties."
What I wanted to figure out why Japan also didn't suffer a "Century of
Humiliation," since they were treated in much the same way by the
West, including "unfair treaties."
The answer, I concluded, was that there was a fork in the road around
the year 1900, and China took one path and Japan took the other path.
The path that China took was the Boxer Rebellion, where they declared
economic war on the entire world, particularly on the West, and
declared all Western religions to be enemies of China. The path that
Japan took was to join the Anglo-Japanese alliance and sign the
Anglo-Japanese treaties, which made Japan part of the West,
diplomatically and economically.
From my book:
Quote:> "Diplomatically, China declared war on the world in
> 1900 through the Boxer Rebellion, blaming their poor economic
> situation on Christianity and other foreign influences.
> But Japan went in the opposite direction signing, in January 1902,
> a treaty with Britain called the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The
> Japanese public were unrestrainedly overjoyed by this treaty,
> because it proved that Japan had emerged from its feudalism to
> become a major international member, worthy of an alliance with a
> European power. They saw it an offensive-defensive alliance
> (koshu domei) in the same mold as the Franco-Russian alliance and
> the triple alliance of Germany, Austria and Italy, except that its
> bounds were unlimited.
> You can argue about the motivations of Britain and Japan in making
> this alliance -- Japan wanted agreement with its commercial
> concessions in Korea and China, while Britain wanted to use the
> alliance as a lever to prevent Japanese militarism and
> expansionism. And you can argue about the motivations of China in
> declaring war on the world in the Boxer Rebellion. But whatever
> the motivations, this moment confirms a major contention of this
> book, that Japan consistently and repeatedly defeated China in
> international diplomacy."
(05-19-2020, 10:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > Still, there is a reason that Japan was with the Axis.
Not because the Japanese gave a shit about Naziism, but because
Japan's enemies were also Germany's enemies, including Britain, Russia
and America.
In my book, I quoted an article written by Bertrand Russell in 1922:
Quote:> "The Japanese are firmly persuaded that they have no
> friends, and that the Americana are their implacable foes. One
> gathers that the Government regards war with America as
> unavoidable in the long run. The argument would be that the
> economic imperialism of the United States will not tolerate the
> industrial development of a formidable rival in the Pacific, and
> that sooner or later the Japanese will be presented with the
> alternative of dying by starvation or on the battlefield. Then
> Bushido will come into play, and will lead to choice of the
> battlefield in preference to starvation. Admiral Sato (the
> Japanese Bernhardi, as he is called) maintains that absence of
> Bushido [Bushido is the code of honor and morals developed by the
> Japanese samurai] in the Americans will lead to their defeat, and
> that their money-grubbing souls will be incapable of enduring the
> hardships and privations of a long war. This, of course, is
> romantic nonsense. Bushido is no use in modern war, and the
> Americans are quite as courageous and obstinate as the Japanese. A
> war might last ten years, but it would certainly end in the defeat
> of Japan."
This is similar to some of the things that Chinese nationalists say
today -- and indeed what many leftists say today about America.
Japan entered a Fourth Turning generational Crisis era in 1926, and
became highly nationalistic and xenophobic after that. It was
particularly triggered by the Smoot-Hawley act. After that, Japan
invaded Manchuria (which, let's recall, was an invasion of China), and
began preparing for full-scale war with China.
