One of the things I noticed on my last post on Japan’s imperial past and Europe’s failure to satisfy the standards of historical reflection to which the Japanese are routinely held is that there are some who apparently believe that Europe’s imperial record is somehow, someway more “civilized” than its Japanese counterpart. A kindler, gentler colonialism. The Daniel Henney of imperial aggrandizement. And at any rate, the truly ugly period of European imperialism was but ancient history by the time the Japanese embarked on their imperial quest in East Asia. Or so this school of thought goes. Anyway, over at Foreign Dispatches, Abiola Lapite pens yet another outstanding post, this time on Britain’s vicious campaign against the Mau Mau in Kenya, just one example of European colonial brutality that took place long after the Japanese empire was dead and buried. He also offers a fairly compelling explanation for the imperial double-standard:
By all objective considerations, then, if we are to judge today’s Japanese as latent ultranationalists and militarists because of their reluctance to play up the negatives of their imperial past to our satisfaction, and in the face of Japan’s long historical record of isolationism outside of Hideyoshi’s mad schemes and the 1895-1945 period, then the British people, who have been involved in too many military engagements to count in the last 30 years alone, let alone over the last millenium, must be Satan’s personal representatives on Earth, with every UK citizen a Terminator-like specimen of utter ruthlessness and aggression. Only a lunatic would believe that this is in any way a fit description of the average person who sits down to watch “Coronation Street” or “Big Brother” every night, but we are willing to believe the worst of the Japanese on a far flimsier basis, and the only reason I can see for this egregious double standard is that the “Yellow Peril” lives on in many hearts and minds: as reluctant as many are to admit it, the conviction that the Japanese are intrinsically “sneaky” and diabolical is one which still has widespread purchase, and it is for this reason that any number of Japanese apologies are dismissed as “insincere” or “duplicitous” by parties which have never acknowledged let alone apologized for even a minute portion of the evils they’ve inflicted on others. That is why British opinionists can breezily rationalize away demands for greater recognition of past misdeeds as so much money-grubbing “PC” nonsense, even though the misdeeds occurred after those for which the Japanese are never to be forgiven, and that is why Europeans of every stripe feel free to play up the positive aspects of their past aggressions even while lambasting Japanese public figures for attempting the same (and often with much more justification).
So brilliantly put it brought tears to my eyes.
Click over and educate yourself.
Still think European imperialism was headed in the right direction while Japan was expanding its empire in the East? Well, if the Kenyan Emergency, Indonesia War of Independence, Indochina and Algeria (to name just a few post-war instances) is what you mean by “heading in the right direction,” I shudder to imagine what European imperialism must have been like before that.
49 Comments
Thanks Rob — too true.
Reluctance to play it up? How about acknowledging that they were responsible for it in the first place?
The museum at Yasukuni Shinsa goes into detail about how a peace-loving Japan was forced into war by the United States (and China).
That right-wing view is a danger in the future if its adherents can’t see where their country went wrong in the past, much less admit that they had done wrong.
Japan is by no means devoid of people who recognize and make clear that Imperial Japan is responsible for many nasty things, and many of them speak out about the same things the Koreans and others do. But a big part of the problem is that some right-wing nationalists in Japan are trying not just to dismantle the general public’s knowledge and awareness of Japan’s past wrongdoing, but to rewrite the textbooks to absolve Imperial Japan of responsibility in one way or another.
Again, I say, the failure of one country or people to acknowledge, apologize for, and otherwise make amends for their past atrocities does NOT let other countries or peoples off the hook.
That Britain has failed in this regard does NOT excuse Japan in any way. It only means that Britain must do better, too.
As for the idea that “the Japanese are intrinsically ’sneaky’ and diabolical” and that means “Japanese apologies are dismissed as ‘insincere’ or ‘duplicitous,’” I would say it’s the actions of Japanese officialdom itself, not some alleged inherent sneakiness or duplicity, that is undermining the apologies. PM Murayama giving the apology of apologies only to have his ruling coalition partners fall over themselves insisting it’s just his own personal apology, or visits to the Yasukuni Shrine whose shrinekeepers espouse and promote a view that contradicts the apologies… well, these are the equivalent of having one’s fingers crossed behind one’s back.
So perhaps the Japanese should just do what the other guys do, which is tell the colonized to take a leap, completely avoid any official responsibility for what they did and get Hollywood to do films like “Something of Value” (worth seeing if for no other reason than to hear Rock Hudson speaking Swahili, which was even worse than when Val Kilmer tried it in the “Ghost and the Darkness) or “Out of Africa” (which goes to you can be a nice, snow bright, snow white liberal like Meryl Streep and still make completely oblivious films about Africa). Perhaps then they’ll come off as less sneaky and duplicitous.
BTW, I’ve seen “Out of Africa” about five times. Having lived a year in East Africa (Tanzania), it brings back warm, fuzzy memories, even if its depictions of colonial Kenya give “whitewash” a new meaning. Oh, and I generally like films by Syndey Pollack.
Why did the first paragraph of my second post not show up as a block quote? Did I mistype “blockquote”?
I think so. Problem corrected.
The English have, as a general rule, failed to lose any war against another nationality since the French kicked us out of France finally in the mid 1500s (the American revolution doesn’t count since at the time the colonists were almost all English, although the war of 1812 might) and they have typically done whatever it takes to win.
In fact the *only* exceptions to this rule looks to be the Afghan wars and, arguably, the Jewish insurgency in Palestine prior to 1948. However, despite occasional lapses the English have turned out to be good at fighting both at the indivudual level and at the larger startegic and geopolitical levels with, IMHO, a far larger number of admirals/generals able to successfully utilize new technologies than any other nation - and a habit of inventing or improving nasty weapons, something that started with the recognition of the deadliness of the longbow.
As a general rule the English have also been very good at spinning the facts so that they look like the purest of pure good guys even when the situation on the ground is rather less clear. This tradition started with William Shakespeare and, in general, the quality of the English propaganda has remained near that high level, although we cannot take credit for that idea - Julius Casar and his fellow Romans figured out the bascis 2000 years ago…
The list of English atrocities on those silly enough to get in the way is large, and the list of English allies who have been subsequently stuffed in the subsequent peace treaty and/or the next war is also large. It was Lord Palmerston who stated this most clearly in his dictum that Britan had no permanent allies - only permanent interests - but he certainly didn’t invent it and he certainly wasn’t the last British leader to stick the knife in the back of some ally. Indeed arguably the first victims of ths process have been the English lower classes who were abused by their betters in fairly gruesome fashion for most of the last millenium.
Japan, it seems to me, falls into the betrayed ally camp as it was throughly stuffed by the British as an ally in 1895 - the triple intervention only stood up because the British failed to complain - and again after WWI where it was more or less told to go away and let the grown ups divide up the world despite having done a pretty good job on the German far east posessions. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Japan decided that the only way to gain influence in the world was to have colonies and that the grabbing of such permitted one to do practically anything one felt like because that was indeed what every other world power was doing. The fact that Japan boostrapped itself up from a backward feudal state in 1845 to a major world power 100 years later is more to its credit than anything else. And while some (most?) of its “coprosperity sphere” rhetoric was bunk there was a kernel of truth in it. The European powers did indeed treat Asia as a place where Europeans made the rules and most of the money, leaving the scraps to the locals. I don’t particularly want to defend Japan’s imperialistic behaviour but I will say that it was just one of the many things it learned it from the Europeans including the British.
Given that in the mid 19th century Korea and Japan started from more or less the same introverted base it is interesting to note the divergence of the two. Japan, after being forced to open by Perry et al., had a civil war between traditionalists and modernizers which the modernizers won. They then sent teams of researchers to Europe and America to gather knowledge and then implemented what it perceived to be best practise from what the teams reported back. Hence, for example, Japan’s Navy was British, its Army German and its internal civil arrangements mostly French and it industrialized like crazy building railways, factories, mills, ships etc etc.
Korea, bascially, had precisiely the same opportunity and muffed it, deciding that it would prefer to remain aloof from the world and progress. Hence 30 years later it was a sitting duck for Japan and Russia to argue over - and BTW had Japan not invaded Korea and Manchuria I think it is certain that Russia would have done so. You can argue whether or not Japan’s imperialism was bad for Korea or not but the choice in 1895/1905 was not between Korean independance and Japanese rule it was between Russian rule and Japanese rule. I think that on the whole Korea did better under Japanese rule than it would have done under Russian rule.
“You can argue whether or not Japan’s imperialism was bad for Korea or not but the choice in 1895/1905 was not between Korean independance and Japanese rule it was between Russian rule and Japanese rule.” That’s why I laugh at Korean “leftists” who say that the U.S. “interfered” in Korean affairs–they would be speaking Russian or Chinese now if not for that, and I doubt the country would be anything more than a very poor province of Russia or China.
Mr. Marmot, you’ve said you are a proponent of realpolitik, more or less, so to play devil’s advocate, isn’t imperialism simply the inevitable result of the state pursuing its own interests exclusively? Why use peace treaties or contracts when you can control your neighbors and their resources?
Dirtydingus—as far as what you’ve said about Britain and Japan’s imperial history, you’ve laid out the facts much more eloquently than I could have hoped to. As I said in my first post in this subject:
Now, as for the Koreans, allow me to say two things in defense of their having dropped the ball in the late 19th century. Firstly, there was a very belated attempt by Korea to get with the program, but by then it was too late. Actually, it’s always interesting to consider what might have been had Korea managed to modernize/strengthen itself prior to its annexation by Japan.
Secondly, while in hindsight, it’s easy to see how Korea completely muffed it, as you say, when given (or more like had forced upon them) pretty much the same opportunities the Japanese had. But at the time, this wasn’t so clear. Korea knew what happened when China tried to interact with the West—it got jacked. Hard. They must have also known what initial interaction with the West had led to in Japan—getting jacked hard, and civil war. So if you’re Korea, you might figure the best way to play the game is not to play at all. Except, as we can now see, not playing was evidently not an option. But it might have appeared like one at the time, especially after the Koreans had managed to defeat French (add your French jokes here) and American encroachments in 1866 and 1871.
Michael—Well, generally speaking, nations tend to look askance at colonizing other states and plundering their resources nowadays, oddly enough. Heck, today, countries get pissed at things like Iraq. The rules of the game now are so different that imperialism is really more trouble than its worth. New imperialism of the latter half of the 19th century/early 20th century sought to gain access to markets and resources, protect the colonies you already had, and deny access to said resources and markets to imperial competitors. Now, with some exceptions, you don’t need boots on the ground and governors-general in pretty waterfront mansions to achieve those objectives.
Back during the period we’re talking about, however, it was a completely different matter.
While I agree that Western countries (that Foreign Dispatches post points up Britain very well, but it could count for any country) haven’t yet had a proper reckoning with their imperial pasts, there is a difference between simply not mentioning it - an insidious practice even so - and reactionaries at the highest levels of goverment actively whitewashing the past. See Taro Aso and his many comments on Japan’s colonisation of Korea.
The reason I think playing mote-and-beam with this isn’t really that effective is because I believe that as long as only China and Korea are raising outrage to stoke domestic nationalism, Japan won’t feel like doing anything. Constructive criticism from the U.S. and others could make them see just how damaging such attitudes are to Japan’s position in the world.
Mr. Marmot, I was pondering in a roundabout way if we’re in a “neoimperialist” era where outright colonialism is not the done thing, but more-powerful countries are still leveraging interest over others through a kind of economic colonialism–I was thinking particularly of China’s entry into Africa, not that I’m saying it is exploiting Africans at this point.
This whole endless debate at the Hole about Japan’s past and perceived present threat by its neighbors seems to hinge on whether nations might be tempted to return to “boots on the ground” colonialism. I’m very skeptical about that development, especially regarding Japan, and yet China is certainly projecting its newly acquired clout around the world, and our friends on the Left say Iraq is an imperialist Yankee invasion, so maybe nations just tend to get more “hands-on” to control their interests than not. Maybe the rules of the game only look different nowadays.
Well, that was quite a ramble, I should sign off as mahathir_fan
Full-blown boots-on-the-ground colonialism isn’t necessary for a lot of lives to be lost. Wars raging today — including some involving some of the world’s powers directly — have led to tens of thousands of deaths each.
A war in this region sparked over something seemingly innocuous (like a territorial dispute or a downed spyplane) could end up with massive casualties.
Japan over the past half century has bean an upstanding, peaceful nation. However, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that, based on this new, pacifist Japan, that it’s unimaginable that Japan could revert back to that when its leaders from the right are trying to undermine and alter the very attitudes and behaviors of the past half century that have made it such an admirable citizen.
What could happen in the future that might “force Japan into going to war,” as the Yasukuni museum puts it? What minor incident could spark a new Sino-Japanese War?
Ah, crap, Marmot. I typed b instead of blockquote. Would you be so kind as to fix the above post, and then delete this one.
Oh, this is a sign I need to go back into lurkdom.
Robert wrote in re my “Korea muffed it” comment:
Oh I agree that hindsight is 20/20 and that at the time the choices were less obvious. But the Koreans were IMO dangerously complacent. Anyone looking just a little further beyond their doors than their adjacent neighbours would have seen that “not playing the game” really wasn’t one of the options on the table - the choice was either be looted/invaded/colonized eventually or get your own set of industrial toys. This was, effectively what the Meiji restorers realized in Japan and (here my knowledge of Korean history lets me down) I see no real reason why there should not have been a similar group of people in Korea. Japan was not exactly alone in this effort, Ottoman Turkey produced Kemal Attaturk after WW1 who tried to do effectively the same thing there.
Robert also wrote in re: Michael:
That I think is the true key to why the British Empire (and for that matter the various US imperialistic ventures) are better remembered than other imperial powers. The Anglosphere was pretty good at free trade and tended to raise the standard of living of those it ruled as well as encouraging trade and property ownership by people of all classes. It is true that some British merchants benefited from perferential access to markets compared to their native colonial competitors but in general the British were quite willing let their colonial subjects trade with whomever they wished and they invested in basic trade infrastructure (roads, railways, ports, law courts (, schools)) that helped both British and colonial traders. France was also fairly good, albeit on a somewhat lasser scale, but other imperial powers simply went in and took.
Japan it seems to me made attempts to imitate the better sort of British imperialism rather than (say) the Belgian model. I think that if anything the root of its failure was to try to do too much too fast. The Russo-Japanese war practically bankrupted Japan and that limited the amount of improvement it could make to its new dependancies. This may also help to explain why its Taiwanese adventure was rather more successful - there was a decade (1895-1905) during which time Japan had a booming economy and far less debt which let it get the new territory properly orgamized. Japan’s Taiwan rule also undoubtedly benefited from the fact that the previous Chinese rule was arbitrary, distant and unsatisfactory in all sorts of ways. In other words while the Tiawanese may not have liked becoming a Japanese colony their material standard of living rose significantly and their governance improved.
Korea was colonized at a time when Japan couldn’t quite afford the investment needed AND it already had a perfectly good government which the Japanese had overthrown. Hence Korea saw none of the improvement in governance or standard of living that Taiwan saw.
Kushibo, personally I think China is the more likely belligerent of the region, particularly since it has threatened Taiwan repeatedly, props up the nork regime, and is a resource-hungry recent capitalist convert. Also, as long as Japan is America’s ally, there is a check on its imperialist ambitions, which are the fantasy of a tiny group or right-wingers in Japan anyway.
As a Southerner, I will support making Japan apologize as soon as the Yankee Horde apologizes for its imperialistic conquest of my homeland.
Oh, and since I am 3/32 Cherokee, I demand a sincere apology to the other 29/32 of me.
“from” the other 29/32 of me.
“I see no real reason why there should not have been a similar group of people in Korea.” Andre Schmid in “Korea Between Empires” said that there was a group in Korea that wanted to modernize with Japan as a model, but that it became problematic with the incipient colonialism, which made those same people look like “Japanese collaborators” (leaving aside those who actually were) and derailed the process. As the Marmot said, Korea was just a little slow out of the box.
Mr. Jackson, the South got its revenge: Lynyrd Skynyrd.
I’m not sure Carter Eckhart (Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism) would agree with Dirty Dingus’s view of the Korean economy in the 1900-1930s period. And Mr. Marmot, are there no countries that benefited from their colonialist experience? Has Singapore torn down their statue of Raffles? I can understand why all those happy, prosperous, African democracies condemn colonialism. They have prospered so mightily once the colonialist boot was lifted from their neck! Will anybody ever be able to stand up and state the unthinkable. That some populations were better off under the “boot” of the blood-sucking colonialists, than they have subsequently been under their own indigenous, nationalist political bosses. And why just single out the Africans? Look how well Burma (oops! Myanmar), Vietnam, and Cambodia have done. Ah, but anyone questioning the newspeak vision of colonialism must be, per se, a racist. Why would any sane person even suggest that between the two simplistics “good” versus “bad” colonialism, there might lie some complicated truths?
“…the conviction that the Japanese are intrinsically “sneaky” and diabolical is one which still has widespread purchase…”
Yes, it’s an accurate description of the attack on Pearl Harbor as being “sneaky” without a declaration of war in place. Perhaps, because of this sneak-attack, it increased the American and Allied resolve to absolutely annhiliate the Japanese Navy in less than 6 months.
It was much later in the war when the Allied Forces discovered how “sneaky” and “diabolical” the Japanese actions actually were, when the atrocities committed against the Japanese colonial subjects were discovered.
“…even though the misdeeds occurred after those for which the Japanese are never to be forgiven…”
Not forgiven, but definitely remembered very well. Would the Japanese forgive the U.S. if we decided to drop a nuclear bomb on Tokyo in the very early morning hours while everyone was sleeping without a declaration of war in place? Sorry, nobody in the American embassy in Tokyo could type in Japanese very quickly (in fact they are in Korea laughing at Japan right now), so we’ll just fax it to you tomorrow — Have a nice day. Would you term these actions as “war crimes” or simply as “sneaky & diabolical”?
Lirelou—Nobody is excusing the shite way in which post-colonial elites in some parts of the developing world, and Africa in particular, have screwed their nations following independence. I can’t speak for Abiola Lapite, but I’m pretty sure he’ll attest to the disaster Nigeria’s post-independence leadership has been, and I got to see first-hand the effect several decades of African Socialism can have on a nation’s socio-economy. But really, even if we agree that Africa’s post-independence leadership has not been a credit to the continent, what’s the point? Does the fact that Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il have probably—not probably, definitely—done far more harm to the Korean people than the Japanese imperialists make the imperial experience any better? And not to make excuses for the Africans, because some countries—like South Korea—managed to overcome the shitty hands they were dealt at independence, but really, it’s not like the Europeans left Africa with a whole lot to build on other than arbitrarily-drawn states, dependent economies structured to bring resources from the interior to the coast, and pretty flags. How many international railroad lines in Africa can you name? Don’t worry—I was an African Studies major, and I can hardly name any either. I guess to answer your question, I guess I could say, yes, there are many countries that perhaps would be better off being re-colonized, if for no other reason than to clean up the mess they (the colonizers) made and left in the first place.
Andy:
Kiss my New York ass. Try not to charge the hill with entrenched infantry at the top next time
Michael wrote:
Kushibo, personally I think China is the more likely belligerent of the region, particularly since it has threatened Taiwan repeatedly, props up the nork regime, and is a resource-hungry recent capitalist convert.
China is absolutely a potential threat, and should therefore be fenced in, while at the same time encouraged to seek economic expressions of its rising might.
However, none of that precludes the need to be concerned that Japan could shed its trademark post-war pacifism. It’s not an either-or situation.
Also, as long as Japan is America’s ally, there is a check on its imperialist ambitions, which are the fantasy of a tiny group or right-wingers in Japan anyway.
Back in 1999, launching a full-scale invasion of Iraq was dismissed as the fantasy of a tiny gorup of right-wingers in the US. And look where we are now.
That “tiny group” is working non-stop behind the scenes to get their agenda accepted, and that includes efforts to make it more palatable. You have Washington falling for this, saying it’s the right thing to do for Japan to take more repsonsibility for its own military issues (something which makes most Japanese nervous, I believe, but something the right-wing has been pushing for). So, Michael, there are people actively working to get rid of that “check on Japan’s imperialist ambitions.”
Yasukuni Shrine is a lithmus test for acceptance of the right-wing view of Japan’s recent past. Koizumi is pandering to these people in a way that his predecessors did not. I think we should be concerned about their aims, rather than dismissing them as a mere fringe.
As in the past, it may be foolish to dismiss concerns of an apparently peaceful Japan somehow going down a different and more dangerous path.
Robert wrote:
“Does the fact that Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il have probably—not probably, definitely—done far more harm to the Korean people than the Japanese imperialists make the imperial experience any better?”
The fact that they are in a position to do any harm is a direct result of Japanese imperialism. Japan’s actions allowed the opportunistic Russians and the Chinese communist-sympathizers, to devistate the Korean peninsula.
Quite frankly, I believe, just like the rest of the world that suffered as a result of Japanese imperialism and now their neo-nationalism exacerbating the situation, the North Koreans and Chinese have a bone to pick with Japan too. I’d venture to guess that when Iran nukes Israel, North Korea, China, and Russia will nuke Japan.
The fact that they are in a position to do any harm is a direct result of Japanese imperialism. Japan’s actions allowed the opportunistic Russians and the Chinese communist-sympathizers, to devistate the Korean peninsula.
Oh, silly Remort. Don’t you know: Japan only gets credit for the good things that happened on the Korean Peninsula after 1945.
And at any rate, even if we were to grant that to be true, the same could apply to Africa’s terrible post-colonial leadership. Even more so, actually, since Africa’s states by-and-large negotiated their independence with the colonial powers, who therefore had much more of a say over who ran the show after the Union Jack, Tricolor, etc. came down than did the Japanese, who lost their colonies as a result of a wartime defeat.
Yes, the Pearl Harbor attack was sneaky. But let me ask you this: do you think the British and French acquired their colonial possessions through honest dealings with the locals?
And gee, despite the fact that atrocities committed by the European colonialists—on a far larger scale, mind you—are fairly out in the open, the Europeans were never forced to wear the label of “diabolical.”
I won’t stop anyone from putting on the sackcloth over Western wrongs of 150-300 years ago, but I don’t see how this recent self-flagellating bent the Marmot is on sheds any useful light on any matters important to Marmot Hole readers now or is of any real benefit to Japan.
Leave aside the transparent political manipulation of Chinese Communists in bringing up Japanese predations, or even the deparately opportunistic pandering of the Roh government in doing the same, and the fact remains that many Asians are wary of Japan because those who espouse the troubling Yasukuni MUSEUM/Sankei Shimbun view of history appear on the ascendent in Tokyo at the same time that Japan is regaining the role in regional and world affairs that its economy requires. Whatever “whitey” says, does or thinks about the Brits in Kenya or wherever and wheneve is a straw-man argument and it doesn’t change this real-world problem one iota.
Henry Hyde’s recent complaints about Koizumi might have flowed largely from the personal bitterness of an old veteran of the war with Japan in the Philippines, but the full context of his argument is that Japan has dug itself into a hole in Asia with Koizumi’s pandering to the far right, and this is inimical to U.S. interests at a pivotal time in Northeast Asian history. This is a concern you’ll hear privately from sitting U.S. officials and publicly from Democrat wonks sitting in the think tanks of Washington.
Robert wrote:
“And at any rate, even if we were to grant that to be true, the same could apply to Africa’s terrible post-colonial leadership. Even more so, actually, since Africa’s states by-and-large negotiated their independence with the colonial powers, who therefore had much more of a say over who ran the show after the Union Jack, Tricolor, etc. came down than did the Japanese, who lost their colonies as a result of a wartime defeat.”
Nobody gives a frog’s fat ass about Africa or what happens or happened there, not even the Africans. Africa is a horrible place to live (unless it’s along a coastline) except for wild animals. Don’t forget that Japan is the one that had started the war, *JUST* losing its colonies was extremely generous — they could well have lost several of their islands to their victims.
Robert wrote:
“And gee, despite the fact that atrocities committed by the European colonialists—on a far larger scale, mind you—are fairly out in the open, the Europeans were never forced to wear the label of “diabolical.””
Europeans didn’t kill over 30,000,000 people in their colonies either. The diabolical, imperial Japanese did kill 30,000,000 innocent people –it’s simply wicked what they did to their declared and undeclared enemies.
I’d argue that Asians are more civilized in dealing with their anger and more-than-justified-hatred in not seeking similarly-brutal retaliatory strikes against Japan via bombings, sabotage, and assassinations to even the score.
Don’t write about it then.
The sentence below wasn’t part of a quotation.
There’s decent evidence for 20 million deaths in India in the late 19th and 20th century. With the Belgian effort in the Congo, you’re at 30 million easy.
Slim, 1957 was not 150-300 years ago.
Remort wrote:
I’d argue that Asians are more civilized in dealing with their anger and more-than-justified-hatred in not seeking similarly-brutal retaliatory strikes against Japan via bombings, sabotage, and assassinations to even the score.
I’d argue it’s the Americans keeping everyone’s anger and hatred at bay.
When and if the US is gone, all bets are off. There will be hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths sparked by something.
Whatever the sins of the past of various colonial powers, there are a few things about current Japanese politics that are worth noting:
1. The taboo against saying anything negative about the emperor/royal family in the Japanese press. Given the history of the emperor system, I find this disturbing.
http://ojr.org/japan/media/1095987858.php
2. The fact that no one will stand up to the right wing folks who (a) go around Tokyo in black vans playing martial music and spouting right wing nonsense at obnoxiously high volumes and (b) otherwise intimidating people/the media.
http://www.japanesestudies.org.....Neill.html
3. The fact that alot of prominent LDP politicians either have similiar views to these right wing nutjobs and/or have ties to them. We had a discussion about the Japanese foreign minisiter, Taro Aso, at the Marmot Hole earlier. You can think what you want about the guy. But you have to ask yourself what kind group of politicians makes that guy their foriegn minister!
http://www3.tky.3web.ne.jp/~edjacob/fringe.html
http://www2.gol.com/users/coyn.....t_word.htm
Similiar things do not happen in the U.K. The royal family is a joke and they are certainly not used to try to revive memories of England’s glorious imperial past. No right wing groups go around London in vans blaring “Hail Brittania” and demanding that the country adopt more conservative/old timey values. No politicians in the Conservative Party go around talking about how great English colonialism was for Kenya (at least as far as I know).
I think the right wing makes up maybe 5% of the Japanese population (total guess). They should be pretty irrelavant. But they are quite prominent in Japanese politics and the halls of power, which is pretty creepy. I think this influence and the effects are the main difference between Japan and say England or Germany. I think it is also what leaves Japan open to criticism and makes the Koreans/Chinese uneasy (course it is also true that the Koreans/Chinese are drama queens prone to overreaction). Anyway just my opinion, I could be wrong …
Just to round out my post. I don’t think 1-3 is a huge deal in the final analysis. Japan’s right wing certainly is not going to get the country to try Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Part II anytime soon. But I can understand (to an extent) why the Koreans/Chinese are nervous/irked. Again just my humble opinion.
emmanuel.goldstein wrote:
“There’s decent evidence for 20 million deaths in India in the late 19th and 20th century. With the Belgian effort in the Congo, you’re at 30 million easy.”
Can you cite any sources for this claim of 20 million Indians killed by the British to backup your claim of this so called “decent evidence”? Again, nobody gives a frog’s fat ass about Africa’s Congo back then, or even now — but I’d love to see a citation for this claim you made too.
stevekim wrote:
“2. The fact that no one will stand up to the right wing folks who (a) go around Tokyo in black vans playing martial music and spouting right wing nonsense at obnoxiously high volumes and (b) otherwise intimidating people/the media.”
In America we don’t mess with the mafia in NY or Chicago either unless we absolutely have to. In Japan, it’s my suspicion that the right-wing (LDP - Liberal Democratic Party & New Komeito Party) folks fund the yakuza to rally support for their candidates with these public displays in vans and shouting at people with loud-speakers at rallies.
stevekim wrote:
“I think the right wing makes up maybe 5% of the Japanese population (total guess).”
I’d guess it would be quite a bit higher with their wins in recent elections and the resurgence of nationalism, perhaps 40 ~ 60% of Japan’s population are right-wingers.
Largely, the political right in Japan draws its power from bureaucrats, farmers/rural areas, and religious leaders. These three groups are notorious for playing money/tax/land games in Japan to protect their wealth and power.
“In America we don’t mess with the mafia in NY or Chicago either unless we absolutely have to …”
By saying people who will “stand up,” I was including the political establishment, media and law enforcement. Certainly politicians, the press and law enforcement in the U.S. are perfectly willing to “mess” with the mafia. But I suppose in Japan, the right wing/organized crime groups are in a weird a part of the establishment (again creepy) and used by politicians (as you suggest). Hence very few people stand up to organized crime and no one in the establishment condemns the right wing groups.
“I’d guess it would be quite a bit higher with their wins in recent elections and the resurgence of nationalism, perhaps 40 ~ 60% of Japan’s population are right-wingers.”
I think that is high. Alot of people voted for Koizumi not for his nationalist views but because of his efforts to break up the corrupt LDP system of government and effect reforms (such as breaking up the postal banking system).
stevekim wrote:
“But I suppose in Japan, the right wing/organized crime groups are in a weird a part of the establishment (again creepy) and used by politicians (as you suggest). Hence very few people stand up to organized crime and no one in the establishment condemns the right wing groups.”
Yep, you’re right on the money. In Japan, the yakuza controls political campaigns, love hotels, soaplands, pachinko parlors, gambling (horse racing, sports betting, mah-jong), drugs, and of course everyone’s favorite — Japanese porn. Their roots run too deeply in the fabric of Japan’s society for them to be removed.
Davis, Mike (2002), Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. First chapter should do the trick.
Do your own research on Africa.
Mr. Goldstein,
Thank you for the citation.
Are you claiming that the British killed 20 million people in India, or that the flu (disease in general) and famine/starvation was responsible for their death?
To put things into perspective, assuming your claim is true that the British killed 20 million in India, the British colonization of India lasted for nearly 200 years. The Japanese held their colonies for approximately 50 years, killing 30 million people — this is just a quarter of the time, with 10 million more people killed.
I don’t think you’ve ever cited a source for your “30 million killed” figure. Are you suggesting that Japan killed 30 million in its colonies—Korea, Taiwan and Manchukuo (and a number of Pacific territories)? Or does that number include casualties resulting from the Sino-Japanese Wars? Heck, even if it did take into consider WWII deaths, I still fail to see how you arrive at 30 million:
WWII casualties.
I think the specific death toll is not that important for the topic of “European imperialism vs. Japanese imperialism”.
Guessing that many numbers cited here are overestimated, unproofed or controversial, I can only give a first hand experience of Germany’s history education about their colonial
policy.
The Prussian-led German Empire, being a status-driven latecomer in the dirty buisness of colonialism, acquired the rest of the world what their European competitors had left over, mainly nowadays Namibia, Togo, Cameroon, Rwanda, Burundi and parts of Tanzania and Kenya. Besides some unimportant islands like Western Samoa,parts of Papua-New Guinea and Kiao-Chau (protectorate) with Tsingtao (leasehold) in China.
Alongside the typical colonial policy of that time like forced labor and forced Christianization for the natives, generally viewing them as uncivilized and underdeveloped tribes at best or as worthless babaric sub-humans. Nonetheless the Germans had their fair share of building modern infrastructure in their overseas territories and recruitment of native administration aides through modern schooling.
The worst part of the colonial history was the genocide of the Hereros during the Herero Insurgence starting 1904 in Namibia. Ten-thousands of Hereros, later the Nama were systematically “dried up” through mercilessly forced expulsion into waterless regions and cutting them off from water resources. With no exception for women, children or elderly.
The nowadays Herero organization claiming compensation from the German government (even in front of US courts) are denied any money in diplomatic acquiesence of Germany and the Namibian government.
Even during the left-led governance of Chancelor Schröder and Foreign Minister Fischer the representatives of the German state were restricted and keen to avoid any offcial compensation-triggering wording of apology for the genocide. Only expressions of abstract “regret” could be heard, with the exception of the German Minister of Development Cooperation, who was bitch-slapped for officially talking about guilt and responisbility for the genocide.
Comparing with the almost Pavlovian-conditioned political correct stance of Germany towards the Holocaust and the sins of World War II, you can see the striking difference of their handling and attitude towards their colonial past. The short-lived imperial German period is quite non-existent in the history curriculum at schools and in the collective memory of the Germans.
Overwhelmingly most of modern history education hovers around 1st World War, 12 years of Nazi-rule, Holocaust and the 2nd Wolrd War, Cold War and the re-unification. That’s it.
Today the average Hans on the street does know few to nil, that Germany even had overseas colonies in the past. And nobody cares about the Herero (who?) or about dark parts of history that happened before the heaviest burden for their historical record: the industrialized annihilation of over 6 million European Jews during Nazi-rule.
Sugar Shin—Thanks for the first-hand explanations on that one. In my previous post on this, I mention the rather startling differences between how Germany has dealt with its WWII past and its colonial past.
Here’s something rather odd about the German colonial experience, at least in Tanzania. Now, the Germans were by-and-large hated as colonial rulers—their administrative methods were a bit rough around the edges, to put it mildly. Yet they were the only colonial power to employ an indigenous language as their language of administration—Swahili in Tanganyika. One might consider this rather progressive, although the joke runs (at least I think it’s a joke) that the Germans decided to go with Swahili because they were so racist they believed the Africans couldn’t learn German.
Robert:
I believe my figure of 30 million, over a period of roughly 50 years, is quite conservative.
My figure of 30 million killed by the Japanese includes all the victims killed (civilian and military) in: Japanese colonies, the First Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, and World War II — each incident was a continuation of Japanese imperialism throughout Asia.
I’ll include two other observations. One, that perhaps the Korean War deaths ought to be included in this figure since the Japanese were directly responsible for the ensuing conflict and misery. And two, in actuality, the real number could be as high as 100,000,000 killed by the Japanese in their wicked imperialistic endeavors.
Remort
Your calculations are incorrect. You have forgotten quite memorable moments of history.
Why don’t you include “victims” of the Imjin war, “victims” of the “Wako” or “victims” of the ancient war between the Yamato dynasty and Shilla?
3 Trackbacks
[...] Marmot has an interesting post and discussion on imperialism, good and bad. Foreign Dispatches is also drawn into the fray. [...]
England, Japan and Imperialism…
Over at the Marmot’s Hole the proprietor wrote a couple of interesting articles about Japan’s imperialism and how it can be compared with the imperialism of the European powers etc etc. I wrote a couple of comments to the second one and I think I pro…
[...] Now, having said that all, none of it would excuses a Japanese attempt to rewrite its own history in a way that whitewashes its colonial past or its wartime aggression. Just because China and Korea—and the West, for that matter (see here and here)—would be better served concentrating their efforts confronting their own historical myths rather than complaining about Japan’s doesn’t mean its OK for Japan to cover up its own history. After all, do the Japanese really want to benchmark the PRC model of historical and educational honesty? [...]