Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:11 pm Post subject: Japanese Imperialism
It was highly hypocritical of Europe and America to object to Japanese Imperialism in China, Korea and Taiwan. Japan did what the European and American powers were doing; and yet they alone were chastised by the same for this 'Imperialist' behavior.
My understanding of the question may be entirely too simplicity, but nevertheless, here it is. Japans desire to expand its spheres of influence, acquire colonies, and establish naval bases is understandable for a number of reasons. Firstly Japan, after the Tokugawa shogunate, was working feverishly to emulate the West and thereby gain its prosperity and power, so one can view the desire of the Japanese for colonies as a simple imitation of the imperialism of the European powers. However one must also understand that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (which I am aware we have not yet gotten to) colonies were growing ever more central to a nations economy as well as prevent it fr4om succumbing to foreign military or diplomatic pressures. With the increasingly industrial economy of Japan raw material were, or course needed, and the Imperialist European powers were getting the raw material required for manufacturing at reduced costs from their colonies. In this way Japan required colonies simply to remain industrially competitive with the western powers. Secondly, as was focused on in the reading, nations without colonies, without buffer zones between them and the aggressively expanding west, without a large sphere of influence, had little ability to negotiate with the larger powers, therefore for Japan to remain independent or free from the coercion of larger empire colonies were necessary. Despite the numerous reasons why, in a colonial world, colonies might have been necessary for a growing nation like Japan, the European and American powers were less than enthusiastic about another nations scrabbling to grab up as much land as possible. This is hardly surprising as competition with yet another nation would make the ever shrinking handful of places not yet colonized still more difficult for each respective power to obtain. So, I guess what I ma trying to say, in my long winded and disorganized way, is that the European and the Americans acted like such big hypocrites because they did not want to have to compete with another nation for the remaining lands not yet colonized.
Anyways, I think it was a bit hypocritical, as the US and Europe seemed to feel that it was all right for them to spread their views yet it was not all right for others to do the same. Of course this sort of thing seems to happen a bunch throughout history, when governments hold other country's actions to a higher standard than their own.
By the way, did anyone else watch Jeopardy with the supercomputer or am I alone in the world?
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: Japanese Imperialism
Yeah I would agree that Western contries were a bit hypocritical in a way because they themselves had done so to other countries or part of the world such as North/South America & India in some centuries ago. Japansese Empire had expanded itself clearly for the sake of its independence as Hardy pointed out, and it was sort of a necessity for it to do so. However, I would have to say that Japanese Imperialism is of a different colonization than that of Spain's or Great Britain's. Japan had long been trading with the continent and the peninsula. So Japanese Imperialism was able to be done with much ready, since many of the informations such as terrain were known. Also, unlike Spain conquistador's voyage or the colonists' raid on native Americans, the Japanese encroachment to Korea and eventually China was very unexpected and shocking, since the island society had always been somewhat inferior to its counterparts.
So are western countries necessarily hypocrites because they critisize Japan for conquering its long and well known neighboring counties?
I would like to know what you guys think!
One question I would like to ask is: How was Japan able to become a militarily superior country, especially in such a short time after going through all the power struggle and the political changes? Does it have something to do with their religion, Shintoism, and their commitment to the Emperor and his orders?
I did not watch Jeopardy with the supercomputer, unfortunately. But now I'm reading about it on engadget.
Anyways, Hardy and Suchan summed up much of what I got out of the reading. Perhaps the United States and Europe was afraid of Japan waging war with their countries, as the Japanese army grew in numbers, money, and skill? This time period in history takes place during somewhat of a race to world domination, which no country actually achieves. Asia, specifically Japan, is a target in this race. Both Europe and America would like to claim Japan, and Japanese Imperialism does not lead them any closer to this goal. Japan's Empire was spreading across Asia, making the country an expanding threat to America and Europe.
Any other thoughts on an ulterior motive to America/Europe's objection?
So I would certainly agree with Hardy that competition was the reason for the Western condemnation of Japanese imperialism, but that raises two questions in my mind.
The first is if they expected a condemnation to actually deter any sort of Japanese actions. I can hardly believe that such a thing has ever had the greatest effect on the world's imperialists, so if competition was the driver and the really wanted to keep Japan from expanding its sphere of influence why didn't they take more significant action?
and
If Americans or Europeans were worried about competition why didn't they levy any ideological complaints against one another for the others' imperialism? I remember Perry described the Japanese as noble but barbaric or something along those lines, so i wonder if this wasn't a manifestation of some sort of western prejudice against easterners, in which they somehow weren't advanced enough to DESERVE to colonize other lands.
I agree that the US and Europe were being hypocritical here. However, somehow I feel that it would just be too easy to support Japan in all of this. I don't think that Japan just wanted to continue to get pushed around by the US and Europe, but at the same time they were fighting fire with fire. It said that "Japan imposed on the Koreans the same kind of unequal treaty system that they sought to shed themselves." Which is saying that, and correct me if I am wrong, but there's a lot more hypocrisy going on here, and it's not just among the US and Europe.
I agree to Farrah's point on Japan "fighting fire with fire". It is ironic that "the government decided to "open" Korea just as the Americans had "opened" Japan." Korea, just like Japan with Perry's arrival with his black ships, were forced to open their port and signed the Treaty of Kangwha. Also it says in the text that "by the early 1890's, "the independence of Korea" had become a fixed goal for the Japanese government. The term, however, was an ambiguous one. For the Japanese army, it meant a Korea free from Chinese rule and firmly under Japanese political domination." It was hypocritical of Japan to colonize Korea and name it the "Korean independence".
In reference to the main question, I agree with Hardy.
Will- To answer your first question, i think that the western powers didnt get more involved for a few reasons, one Japan was far enough away that it wouldnt be economically smart to do so. Also, the western powers might have been too wrapped up in expanding to territories untouched by imperialism, which would be easier to expand their sphere of influence over.
Near the end of the reading, it mentions that the Japanese population wasnt happy with what the treaty with Russia brought, and that they expected more from it. They thought this because they didnt understand the hardships that the Japanese government was actually going through, and that makes me think that Japan had started using, wether intentionally or not, false propaganda concerning their military power. This idea of continuing nationalism even if it is falsely based continues on into WWII. So my question is, does this tell us something about the fundamentals of the Japanese government and how it conducts itself with respect to its people?
I thought Will's questions were pretty interesting.
In response to the first, I think that Isaac has brought up a good point about how economics could have played a part, but what was actually happening in the countries that might have taken more serious action could have also played a part. There's a lot going on everywhere, so I think that probably contributes. At the same time, how would those countries even take more significant action? Starting a war doesn't really seem to make much sense ( at least to me ), and I'm not sure but I don't think threatening to cut off trade would really phase the Japanese? So I don't really know what they'd do.
Similarly, in response to the second of Will's questions, I think it was less about prejudice and more about what is actually do-able for the countries; Japan's not the biggest country, but it's not super tiny either, and it's far enough from both America and Europe that it wouldn't be super easy to colonize and maintain. Besides, if the Japanese wanted more power to go to the people and less to the emperor, I don't think they'd take super kindly to some ther country stepping in and trying to take over.
Joined: 15 Feb 2011 Posts: 7 Location: United States of America
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:04 am Post subject:
Minsu brings up a good point. What does Korean 'independence' really mean when it's reinforced/protected/controlled by a foreign influence? Japan supposedly wanted to protect less developed/industrialized Asian countries from Western colonization, but isn't their colonization just as damaging/unfair?
This brings up the question of what to do in the face of foreign colonization? I don't think anyone really knows a good response to this. In many cases might makes right. Those countries whose technology lags behind more advanced countries are at their mercy.
This might be totally off because the time periods were very apart, but I’m making some connections with this and the US Cold War & Vietnam class that I took last mod. Not saying they have any direct relations, but the intentions of the US and Europe stopping Japan reminds me of what Noam Chomsky said, he thinks the US wants “stability” and security for upper classes. And also the weakest, poorest countries often arouse the greatest hysteria. First, I believe the US and Europe had seen themselves higher than Japan, which matches with the “upper classes” part. Second, they thought Japan was a backward country that refuses anything changes up till Japan ended the sakoku policy, which kind of ties with the “weakest, poorest countries” part. The US accepted Europe to “share” the world with him because Europe had been the powerful and leading countries, but they couldn’t accept Japan to be a part of this because she was “nobody,” and if Japan could do this, what makes the other countries think they couldn’t?
To sort of answer Franky’s question, Taiwan was one of the colonies, but I remembered when I studied Taiwanese history, we didn’t really blame Japan for taking over. Japan helped Taiwan in industrialization, economical and social improvement, and gradually treated Taiwan as a part of their country not just a colony. That was why when Japan handed us back to China people started to miss the days under Japan. As one of the colonies, I wouldn’t say Japan treated every colony the way they treated Taiwan, and they definitely had damaged some parts of our culture and country, but I think Japan looked at their colonies and bit different than the US and Europe looked at theirs.
As supported well by everyone’s thought, it was hypocritical of Europe and America to criticize Japanese Imperialism in its neighboring countries. Nonetheless, this hypocritical behavior of western power is fairly reasonable to me. As Anya mentioned, back then Japan was a target to discourage in the competition for world domination. Why? From western power’s perspective, Japan was competitive enough to be a great threat. Japan’s success in modernization in so short a time surprised western powers and drew full attention from them in terms of how Japan was able to adopt Western political, social, and economic institutions. Also, China, Korea and Taiwan were very attractive to them urged to find another new marketplaces because those countries were abundant in natural resources; however, Japan was taking advantages over western powers in terms of distances and former treaties.
i think that the us and europe were definitely being hypocritical. as sam said in his post the united states believed that it was okay for them to share their views with the rest of the world through expansion but it wasn't okay for other countries to do the same thing. japan had some of the same goals as the united states had when they were expanding into the world. they were looking for power and resources and wanted to establish themselves as independent and established enough to control other colonies.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
