And I have to make another vine in this thread because the author of this article talks about something Westerners poorly understand: so-called "Chinese" influence in East Asia. Anyone writing this kind of narrative should be embarrassed for lacking rigour and for being lazy.
Of course, this author (among many others on here) too is enamoured with the UNSTOPPABLE RISE OF CHINA. He seems to think that Japan is embarrassed by the Taika Reforms, a so-called "Chinese import" from the Tang Dynasty.
Do you know exactly WHO the Tang are? If you do, you would understand that these administrative imports are not "Chinese" (whatever that means) but they are MONGOLIC in nature. Since they came from the kingdom of Baekje, it is also proto-Korean flavoured.
Did you ever bother to read Yuan Dynasty demographic records? There's a mountain of evidence against the so-called "Han Chinese". Most of the "Chinese" netizens who got mad over the Japan era name are mad at Japan disregarding the reforms of their masters, not their own.
These Westerners seem to love making China to East Asia's Rome but the truth is: most "Chinese" people cannot claim descent from the glory of these dynasties, and these importations being "Chinese", a 20th century identity constructed on easily broken straw, is questionable.
@Vajra_Enthusias With regards to continuity, it is true but up to a certain point: the Xinhai Revolution. The simultaneous rejection and overthrowing of the imperial institutions as well as the formation of a new "Chinese identity" which also rejects continuous regional institutions and norms.
@Vajra_Enthusias I feel like I said something stupid/inconsistent, so let me rephrase. There are continuous regional institutions and culturess since even the time of the Qin that have persisted throughout the millennia, but they are rejected by this new "Chinese" identity.
@Vajra_Enthusias It doesn't serve as an encapsulation as Rome may have been, but as a wholesale rejection/integration instead.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Emperor being "liberal" is certainly a big problem but only in the context of the post-Meiji Japanese state. Before that, you had the bakufu system where the Emperor did not matter as much with de facto power. You're not supposed to need the Emperor this much.
There are people who argue that Japanese "ultranationalism" is on the rise just because Abe Shinzo waves a figurative phallus to his neighbours & envisions a "beautiful Japan" dominated by modern bureaucratic statism & rotting corpses of keiretsu that rely on foreign labour.
What is really on the rise, and has been in place since 1945, is Atlanticist postwar conservatism. Conservatives think and do things within the framework of liberal democracy) - in that sense they are fundamentally different from the "radical ultranationalist".
The defining position of radical uyoku is that their image of Japan depends on the preservation of the kokutai that is centered on the Emperor & his subjects - that's uyoku by definition. If some uyoku diverge from this position, they have become something else.
Thread on why Meiji Japan economically "developed" and why Joseon Korea and Qing China did not.
Interesting subject that doesn't actually get talked about a lot, at least outside of Korean economic departments. I had a conversation with a good friend a while back about this, but I did not really pick up the literature until now.
On Joseon Korea: There are underlying effects from the large population loss from the Imjin War and underlying effects from the fact that Joseon Korea was a tributary of Qing. On the latter, Qing China did not really treat Joseon Korea as an actual tributary until the 1800s.
What is considered "controversial historiography" in East Asia is historiography that delves into the fact that members of the same royal family ruled over what is now Yamato and what is now Baekje, and also the Imperial Family's origins in Buyeo.
It means that part of Korean, Manchurian and some part of Eastern Chinese territories are de jure property of His Imperial Majesty. All of these do hinge on a big "if", but these are what are in genealogical records (the Shinsen Shojiroku). You can't really argue against them.
I'm not even trying to be an uyoku dantai crazy person here, this is just what's on genealogies that no one really reads.
The notion of Japan as a monolithic entity is a weird stereotype that most people have. All they have to do is read the Kojiki and they can see before their very eyes, the supremacy of the Yamato kingdom over several smaller polities.
Izumo itself has been a controversial region of Japan (Yamato state) for literally two millennia now. It represents a jarring counterargument to Japan as a single homogeneous entity, and to the centralization of the Emperor into a state.
Yamato had been friendly with one of the Korean kingdoms, Baekje (Kudara in our records). Izumo itself had been friendly with Silla (Shiragi). The heaven vs. earth dichotomy pops up here again, Yamato representing the gods of heaven, and Izumo representing the gods of earth.
Since somehow it has become popular to hate Korea around here for their behaviour - here is a thread I made about East Asian historical education which heavily influences Korean mentality.
From discussions with other Koreans about education, it seems that the colonial period (1910-1945) overshadows everything else in Korean history. Emphasis is given to it. Modern Koreans don't really care about Goguryeo, Baekje, or even Dangun.
This is not a complete fault of the Koreans. The victimhood narrative is something that was fed to educators during the colonial period, and even until now by Koreans themselves or Hoklo-Baiyue rabble online.