arakawa's reversal of the usual
26 Jul 2010 11:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigounote: uncharacteristically, I wasn't inclined to or wasn't up to or whatever other lack o' motivation, thus in writing this I found myself without the energy to spell everything out as I might normally do -- so if there are any blanks for you (history-wise, mostly), please refer to the comments, where others have taken the time to carefully delineate what I let pass with vague implication. I know, unlike me! But still. I can't always be writing 10-page posts at the drop of a hat.
If you've watched your share of mecha (and related) anime, you've probably seen this trope several times, maybe even enough to know it by heart: madman acting out of self-proclaimed altruistic means, which usually amounts to, "if I destroy the world by (a) dropping a big honking meteor/planet/space-colony (b) launching a massive mushroom-bomb of horrendous power (c) whipping up the entire world against me so it stops fighting each other and instead fights only me whereupon I crush everyone (d) ending the world as we know it by some other means (e) pretty much killing everyone and blaming it all on the two-step maneuver of war and peace because anyone with a clue knows "rebellion" is just a self-justified synonym for war, you morons who can't count..."
...and that by doing so, WE GET PEACE.
Because, apparently, if you're a self-proclaimed lover-of-humanity with psychotic but ultimately altruistic intentions, of course it's perfectly logical to you that if you burn everyone's retinas with the ultimate war, that they'll all immediately come to their senses and want peace at any cost. And that of course, humanity has always become immediately pacifist upon surviving a horrendous war of attrition. I mean, look at World War I -- boy, Europe and the Americas were just swept by a craze of pacifism as a result!
Not.
This is not logic that resembles my earth logic, but then, a lot of anime doesn't resemble myculture earth, either.
Anyway. That's the basic logic: you've got your Gundams drop-the-colony versions, you've got your "I'm so depressed the whole world should suffer along with me" variation a la Eureka Seven, hell, even Naruto's gotten into the act with a combination of both of the above. In the end, it's all different harmonies to the same melody, that if one achieves peace through war, ergo a really BIG war should bring about a really BIG peace.
That was in my head, with some amusement at the lack of parallel, when reading the FMA manga (and then seeing it replayed in the second anime; the first anime varied, obviously, in some intriguing ways but that's for another post). That is: Arakawa does not do thefuck-for-virginity war-for-peace routine of so many others in the animanga world. She does ask, seems to me, whether a science (such as that of war) can be neutral in and of itself, and evil or good dependent on intentions, but she doesn't play the game of having some power-hungry madman claim god's light and altruism blah blah blah with the goal of achieving peace. No, her madmen are most definitely using the people's sacrifice as tools, and nothing more.
Tangent: what I find most interesting, actually, about Arakawa's apparent stance that alchemy (read: science) is a neutral art is that she doesn't disregard the origins of the science. If a science were truly neutral, then intentions would not only rule but might even rule out previous negative intentions -- which is the usual justification for using what had been a negative item/act but instead using it for good. (Gundam does this all the time, flipping the "massive weapon built for warfare" into "massive weapon that's now good by virtue -- pun intended -- of being piloted by one whose heart is pure AND who uses it only to protect the people, etc, etc.")
Arakawa doesn't take that route; if she had, Edward's lesson in the end would've been that he could use either a freely-gifted philosopher's stone (someone else's, or his own father's), because Edward's own intention-for-good outweighs the means by which the stone was created. Arakawa stops short of total neutrality for science, even when the intention is about as pure as you can get and the once-destructive force is even potentially willing to be re-used. I find it intriguing that Edward's position is that something once made via evil/sacrificial/destructive means cannot be rendered positive/constructive simply by a later user's intentions. This position is seen as counter-productive, even self-defeating by the rest of the characters, but the text seems pretty clear about Edward and Alphonse being in the 'right' on this.
Awful lot of science fiction stories (anime and elsewhere), and no few fantasy stories, too, would find their resolutions cut out from under them if everyone were so strict about the entire process as were Edward and Alphonse.
Back to what I was saying: in every anime I can think of in which we have this big-war-big-peace argument, god is mentioned at some point, if not several times. Now, I'm going with translated texts here, it's true, but I can still recognize "kami" when I hear it spoken, and I've been told by many people (Japanese and students of the same) that this isn't really a word that's thrown around in the culture. In comparison to Western, that is, where you'll frequently hear people toss off variations and slang-cousins of 'god', 'jesus', 'holymothermaryofgod'. English is a language that uses such expressions as a matter of course, and a lot of that has to do with a long history of being judeo-christian, and you can fill in the blanks on the rest of this so I don't have to, right.
In contrast, I'm told the average Japanese person seems to be more likely to lean towards a state of areligiousity, not as people per se but in terms of how they define their culture: a place or way of being in which "god" is not really the crucial centerpoint of their lives as it is in the judeo-christian West. Or to put it this way: even when we Westerners, as individuals, consider ourselves somewhat less religious (or not at all), we can't deny we're living in cultures that remain strongly religious in many ways, such that it permeates our lives in spite of us, even despite us. That makes a Japanese animanga character spouting off about god rather... well, let's just say I've learned it's a kind of dogwhistle for 'western concepts' or 'western culture' or 'western perspective'.
I'm not saying that's bad or good, only that it seems meant to indicate that the culture represented in the anime is more influenced by Western notions than by Japanese -- which is why it's of particular interest, I think, that when I can recall characters going on and on about "god is on my side" and "this is god's way" and all that dreck, it's also invariably the justification used by the same madman who's about to unleash total war on the unsuspecting and unwitting sacrificial victims.
Note, too, that this is another major element in the "drop a space-colony on you to teach you a lesson" trope: that the thus western-implied god-talking self-proclaimed altruistic madman is also, thus, setting up the soon-to-be-pulverized regular citizens as the victims. That despite the seemingly benevolent (in the sense of benevolent dictatorship, but that's just semantics when it's thirty seconds to impact) intentions, we almost always see the citizens as desperately attempting to flee, and we're supposed to feel for their terror and horror at this world-sized larning about to be dropped on their collective heads. We don't see them as warmongering monsters who need this lesson before they'll be stopped; the stories are almost always set up to see the people as helpless, harmless, essentially good humans who are peaceful at heart.
Hello, victim-trope, good to see you again!
There's no doubt that Arakawa plays the victim-trope in that sense, because with each instance of genocide, her text makes it clear that there's no excuse nor rationalization for decimating an entire population. But, and I think this is very important, she never puts a madman front and center to proclaim he (or more rarely, she) is doing this for "the world's good" -- no, Arakawa's madmen don't give a rat's ass about the world's good, or ill, or anything.
So, first deviation: the madmen may be mad, but the average citizen is completely clueless. Leading off that, the madmen are planning world destruction (or at least their half) but it's not to teach anyone a lesson, nor to lead the world into a better tomorrow. It's purely selfish; it's destruction and sacrifice of many for the sake of a few.
But this is where the god-issue comes into it, because there's one area I do recall well enough from my studies (which if you don't recall, were originally in 20th European Theology, and two of the biggest shapers of European judeo-christian theology were world war the first and world war the second). And it's something you can't miss if you've spent any time delving into the history between the wars and leading into the second, if you ever happen to sidestep into discussions of who enabled Hitler's regime -- scratch a little, and you'll find the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, although the Lutheran Church underwent the biggest changes in its liturgy to amalgamate itself with Nazi policies.
Not that this is such a shock, seeing how xtianity (and islam, too) frequently merged the religious with secular to present an argument of "god is on our side". It's a frequent refrain, over and over in Western civilization, justifying this, rationalizing that. I bring that up because if Amestris were an analogue to Germany, then it would fit perfectly to have Amestris' leaders spout lines not unlike Cornello's in the first two chapters. It would match the analogue: that it's right to massacre Ishval on religious grounds, that it's right to follow Amestrian leaders because god-is-on-our-side... yet I don't recall either of those. Hell, I recall vaguely some of the justifications for the Ishval massacre but I don't recall that it was necessarily because Amestris-god-is-bigger-than-Ishval-god. For that matter, I don't recall if the stated reasons were even religious, so much as general-culture.
In other words: the analogue of Germany stops short when you get to the religious elements, though you could say it comes through loud and clear on racial terms.
However, there's only two instances I can think of where Arakawa mentions any kind of religion at all. The first is with the Church of Cornello, which shows the trappings of quasi-Western judeo-christian design (Cornello's jacket is a mix of a Nehru jacket and a truncated Jesuit cassock, complete with stole; the church design is definitely Western cathedral despite the Poseidon-looking statue of Leto). No bones are made about the fact that this monotheistic religion is total crock, created solely for Cornello's own glorification -- and it's of note, I think, that Cornello meets his end at the hands of the Sins, but more on that in a bit.
The other major religion with any play in the story is Ishbal, Ishval, Ishvar, however we're saying it this week. Not only does it have strong desert-religion trappings reminiscent of early Islam (or possibly ancient Judaism, considering that once or twice I could've sworn some of the coat/drapings could've passed for the design usually used to illustrate the proverbial coat-of-many-colors) -- but it's also anti-alchemy, maybe anti-scientific, but also -- and this is important -- predominantly pacifist or at least peace-loving, and less technologically advanced. It's also monotheistic, though I can't recall there being a great deal of exposition on the exact nature of the Ishvallan religion, only that it's used as a contrast to the generally agnostic/areligious Amestris.
Take all that together, stir well, and you might be starting to get a taste of the pie I think I might be making: if the corollary here is some kind of vague Germany-analogue of a mix-up of WWI and WWII, yet told through the lens of someone whose culture puts a hell of a lot through the lens of Japan's own experiences of the first half of the 20th century, then I think Amestris is a stand-in for Germany is a stand-in for Japan. That's how you get the destruction of its own citizens, but without the historical enabling of the god-on-our-side proposed in pulpits as rationalization for actions (admittedly on the side of the Axis and the side of the Allies, it's a thing we do in the West, it seems).
Instead... in Arakawa's mash-up analogue: the military is sacrificing its own citizens for the glory of the military and its leader and no other -- something that might've passed by me without much comment a month ago but after the history-sink of Senkou no Night Raid it's suddenly in sharp focus. The military's own goals, for the military's own glory, done at the cost of the citizenry and possibly with full knowledge of the costs the citizenry might eventually bear, but who cares? The military certainly doesn't.
And if that's not enough, consider that it's Ishval's unexpected eleventh-hour cooperation that makes it possible to overturn and defeat these plans of genocide. In other words, what I'm seeing is this: the monotheistic pacifist culture is not the one justifying the destruction but the one preventing it, and it's the country's own military -- and the Sins, in the shape of military secret intelligence? -- who are driving the country towards such destruction.
Now that's a flip on the usual... especially when you add in that if the Sins are the analogue for military secret police/intelligence, they're the ones who not only take out Cornello (after Edward walks away), but also create unrest in Liore and are the ones who ostensibly set match to fuse to light up the Ishbal massacre. In other words, a police/intelligence with absolutely no regard for the people, but even more pointedly, a force that wipes out all competing religions (other than jingoism), regardless of whether they're true or false.
Something for contemplation, but curious -- and neatly parallel -- all the same.
Wah. It just makes me wish all the more I had at least a smattering of Japanese, to be able to write Arakawa and tell her about how I've got a little shrine to her brain, right here beside me in my office, because what a brain it is. Man, I've not thought this much about a series after it's ended since, uhm...never Gundam. Okay, since Gundam, but I defend that on the grounds that Gundam was my first introduction to the madman-says-BIG-war-makes-BIG-peace trope, so I guess an evolution to the next level naturally gets me going all over again.
If you've watched your share of mecha (and related) anime, you've probably seen this trope several times, maybe even enough to know it by heart: madman acting out of self-proclaimed altruistic means, which usually amounts to, "if I destroy the world by (a) dropping a big honking meteor/planet/space-colony (b) launching a massive mushroom-bomb of horrendous power (c) whipping up the entire world against me so it stops fighting each other and instead fights only me whereupon I crush everyone (d) ending the world as we know it by some other means (e) pretty much killing everyone and blaming it all on the two-step maneuver of war and peace because anyone with a clue knows "rebellion" is just a self-justified synonym for war, you morons who can't count..."
...and that by doing so, WE GET PEACE.
Because, apparently, if you're a self-proclaimed lover-of-humanity with psychotic but ultimately altruistic intentions, of course it's perfectly logical to you that if you burn everyone's retinas with the ultimate war, that they'll all immediately come to their senses and want peace at any cost. And that of course, humanity has always become immediately pacifist upon surviving a horrendous war of attrition. I mean, look at World War I -- boy, Europe and the Americas were just swept by a craze of pacifism as a result!
Not.
This is not logic that resembles my earth logic, but then, a lot of anime doesn't resemble my
Anyway. That's the basic logic: you've got your Gundams drop-the-colony versions, you've got your "I'm so depressed the whole world should suffer along with me" variation a la Eureka Seven, hell, even Naruto's gotten into the act with a combination of both of the above. In the end, it's all different harmonies to the same melody, that if one achieves peace through war, ergo a really BIG war should bring about a really BIG peace.
That was in my head, with some amusement at the lack of parallel, when reading the FMA manga (and then seeing it replayed in the second anime; the first anime varied, obviously, in some intriguing ways but that's for another post). That is: Arakawa does not do the
Tangent: what I find most interesting, actually, about Arakawa's apparent stance that alchemy (read: science) is a neutral art is that she doesn't disregard the origins of the science. If a science were truly neutral, then intentions would not only rule but might even rule out previous negative intentions -- which is the usual justification for using what had been a negative item/act but instead using it for good. (Gundam does this all the time, flipping the "massive weapon built for warfare" into "massive weapon that's now good by virtue -- pun intended -- of being piloted by one whose heart is pure AND who uses it only to protect the people, etc, etc.")
Arakawa doesn't take that route; if she had, Edward's lesson in the end would've been that he could use either a freely-gifted philosopher's stone (someone else's, or his own father's), because Edward's own intention-for-good outweighs the means by which the stone was created. Arakawa stops short of total neutrality for science, even when the intention is about as pure as you can get and the once-destructive force is even potentially willing to be re-used. I find it intriguing that Edward's position is that something once made via evil/sacrificial/destructive means cannot be rendered positive/constructive simply by a later user's intentions. This position is seen as counter-productive, even self-defeating by the rest of the characters, but the text seems pretty clear about Edward and Alphonse being in the 'right' on this.
Awful lot of science fiction stories (anime and elsewhere), and no few fantasy stories, too, would find their resolutions cut out from under them if everyone were so strict about the entire process as were Edward and Alphonse.
Back to what I was saying: in every anime I can think of in which we have this big-war-big-peace argument, god is mentioned at some point, if not several times. Now, I'm going with translated texts here, it's true, but I can still recognize "kami" when I hear it spoken, and I've been told by many people (Japanese and students of the same) that this isn't really a word that's thrown around in the culture. In comparison to Western, that is, where you'll frequently hear people toss off variations and slang-cousins of 'god', 'jesus', 'holymothermaryofgod'. English is a language that uses such expressions as a matter of course, and a lot of that has to do with a long history of being judeo-christian, and you can fill in the blanks on the rest of this so I don't have to, right.
In contrast, I'm told the average Japanese person seems to be more likely to lean towards a state of areligiousity, not as people per se but in terms of how they define their culture: a place or way of being in which "god" is not really the crucial centerpoint of their lives as it is in the judeo-christian West. Or to put it this way: even when we Westerners, as individuals, consider ourselves somewhat less religious (or not at all), we can't deny we're living in cultures that remain strongly religious in many ways, such that it permeates our lives in spite of us, even despite us. That makes a Japanese animanga character spouting off about god rather... well, let's just say I've learned it's a kind of dogwhistle for 'western concepts' or 'western culture' or 'western perspective'.
I'm not saying that's bad or good, only that it seems meant to indicate that the culture represented in the anime is more influenced by Western notions than by Japanese -- which is why it's of particular interest, I think, that when I can recall characters going on and on about "god is on my side" and "this is god's way" and all that dreck, it's also invariably the justification used by the same madman who's about to unleash total war on the unsuspecting and unwitting sacrificial victims.
Note, too, that this is another major element in the "drop a space-colony on you to teach you a lesson" trope: that the thus western-implied god-talking self-proclaimed altruistic madman is also, thus, setting up the soon-to-be-pulverized regular citizens as the victims. That despite the seemingly benevolent (in the sense of benevolent dictatorship, but that's just semantics when it's thirty seconds to impact) intentions, we almost always see the citizens as desperately attempting to flee, and we're supposed to feel for their terror and horror at this world-sized larning about to be dropped on their collective heads. We don't see them as warmongering monsters who need this lesson before they'll be stopped; the stories are almost always set up to see the people as helpless, harmless, essentially good humans who are peaceful at heart.
Hello, victim-trope, good to see you again!
There's no doubt that Arakawa plays the victim-trope in that sense, because with each instance of genocide, her text makes it clear that there's no excuse nor rationalization for decimating an entire population. But, and I think this is very important, she never puts a madman front and center to proclaim he (or more rarely, she) is doing this for "the world's good" -- no, Arakawa's madmen don't give a rat's ass about the world's good, or ill, or anything.
So, first deviation: the madmen may be mad, but the average citizen is completely clueless. Leading off that, the madmen are planning world destruction (or at least their half) but it's not to teach anyone a lesson, nor to lead the world into a better tomorrow. It's purely selfish; it's destruction and sacrifice of many for the sake of a few.
But this is where the god-issue comes into it, because there's one area I do recall well enough from my studies (which if you don't recall, were originally in 20th European Theology, and two of the biggest shapers of European judeo-christian theology were world war the first and world war the second). And it's something you can't miss if you've spent any time delving into the history between the wars and leading into the second, if you ever happen to sidestep into discussions of who enabled Hitler's regime -- scratch a little, and you'll find the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, although the Lutheran Church underwent the biggest changes in its liturgy to amalgamate itself with Nazi policies.
Not that this is such a shock, seeing how xtianity (and islam, too) frequently merged the religious with secular to present an argument of "god is on our side". It's a frequent refrain, over and over in Western civilization, justifying this, rationalizing that. I bring that up because if Amestris were an analogue to Germany, then it would fit perfectly to have Amestris' leaders spout lines not unlike Cornello's in the first two chapters. It would match the analogue: that it's right to massacre Ishval on religious grounds, that it's right to follow Amestrian leaders because god-is-on-our-side... yet I don't recall either of those. Hell, I recall vaguely some of the justifications for the Ishval massacre but I don't recall that it was necessarily because Amestris-god-is-bigger-than-Ishval-god. For that matter, I don't recall if the stated reasons were even religious, so much as general-culture.
In other words: the analogue of Germany stops short when you get to the religious elements, though you could say it comes through loud and clear on racial terms.
However, there's only two instances I can think of where Arakawa mentions any kind of religion at all. The first is with the Church of Cornello, which shows the trappings of quasi-Western judeo-christian design (Cornello's jacket is a mix of a Nehru jacket and a truncated Jesuit cassock, complete with stole; the church design is definitely Western cathedral despite the Poseidon-looking statue of Leto). No bones are made about the fact that this monotheistic religion is total crock, created solely for Cornello's own glorification -- and it's of note, I think, that Cornello meets his end at the hands of the Sins, but more on that in a bit.
The other major religion with any play in the story is Ishbal, Ishval, Ishvar, however we're saying it this week. Not only does it have strong desert-religion trappings reminiscent of early Islam (or possibly ancient Judaism, considering that once or twice I could've sworn some of the coat/drapings could've passed for the design usually used to illustrate the proverbial coat-of-many-colors) -- but it's also anti-alchemy, maybe anti-scientific, but also -- and this is important -- predominantly pacifist or at least peace-loving, and less technologically advanced. It's also monotheistic, though I can't recall there being a great deal of exposition on the exact nature of the Ishvallan religion, only that it's used as a contrast to the generally agnostic/areligious Amestris.
Take all that together, stir well, and you might be starting to get a taste of the pie I think I might be making: if the corollary here is some kind of vague Germany-analogue of a mix-up of WWI and WWII, yet told through the lens of someone whose culture puts a hell of a lot through the lens of Japan's own experiences of the first half of the 20th century, then I think Amestris is a stand-in for Germany is a stand-in for Japan. That's how you get the destruction of its own citizens, but without the historical enabling of the god-on-our-side proposed in pulpits as rationalization for actions (admittedly on the side of the Axis and the side of the Allies, it's a thing we do in the West, it seems).
Instead... in Arakawa's mash-up analogue: the military is sacrificing its own citizens for the glory of the military and its leader and no other -- something that might've passed by me without much comment a month ago but after the history-sink of Senkou no Night Raid it's suddenly in sharp focus. The military's own goals, for the military's own glory, done at the cost of the citizenry and possibly with full knowledge of the costs the citizenry might eventually bear, but who cares? The military certainly doesn't.
And if that's not enough, consider that it's Ishval's unexpected eleventh-hour cooperation that makes it possible to overturn and defeat these plans of genocide. In other words, what I'm seeing is this: the monotheistic pacifist culture is not the one justifying the destruction but the one preventing it, and it's the country's own military -- and the Sins, in the shape of military secret intelligence? -- who are driving the country towards such destruction.
Now that's a flip on the usual... especially when you add in that if the Sins are the analogue for military secret police/intelligence, they're the ones who not only take out Cornello (after Edward walks away), but also create unrest in Liore and are the ones who ostensibly set match to fuse to light up the Ishbal massacre. In other words, a police/intelligence with absolutely no regard for the people, but even more pointedly, a force that wipes out all competing religions (other than jingoism), regardless of whether they're true or false.
Something for contemplation, but curious -- and neatly parallel -- all the same.
Wah. It just makes me wish all the more I had at least a smattering of Japanese, to be able to write Arakawa and tell her about how I've got a little shrine to her brain, right here beside me in my office, because what a brain it is. Man, I've not thought this much about a series after it's ended since, uhm...
no subject
Date: 27 Jul 2010 03:17 pm (UTC)This is a really interesting thought. It seems to me that Arakawa gives the non-purists a decent out, though, in that they pledge to use the lives stored in the Philosopher's Stone for good. Ed does it with Envy's stone, Al does it with the stone stolen from Kimberley, Hohenheim does it with his own stone, and Mustang does it with the doctor's stone, to get his sight back. This comes back to your using-the-negative-thing-for-good trope, dunnit? *grins*
The military's own goals, for the military's own glory, done at the cost of the citizenry and possibly with full knowledge of the costs the citizenry might eventually bear, but who cares? The military certainly doesn't.
Isn't this what WWII Japan experienced? All suffering was for the glory of the Emperor and "Japan", which in practical terms turned out to be the military, as the enactor's of the Emperor's and "Japan"'s will. It's true of feudal societies in general, I would think (but then you know I don't think too hard.) Seems to me like Arakawa created Amestris to be a feudal state masquerading as a democracy -- now that's effing deep, don't you think? Wow.
I saw a post somewhere that had a link to a Japanese site, possible at Shounen GanGan, where you could leave a message for Arakawa-sensei. Dunno if the comments are still open, but I could try to dig up the link, if you like.
And FWIW, I normally detest analysis. Somehow you make it interesting. :D
no subject
Date: 28 Jul 2010 03:29 am (UTC)Yeah, from the Meiji Restoration until 1945 the emperor was the center of a cult-of-the-nation, explicitly based in Shinto, and a Shinto that became more and more...not imperialistic, precisely, though it was used for imperialism in Asia, but--the Japanese phrase is 八紘一宇, the eight corners of the world under one roof: the emperor had the right and the (moral, ethical) imperative to bring the world under the Japanese state Shinto banner. And going along with the ratcheting up in state Shinto after the Showa emperor came to the throne was a concomitant emphasis on the national subject's duty owed to the emperor, whether in the form of soldiering or raising the children in the home islands or working for the railway company in Manchukuo, with an increasing emphasis on sacrificing oneself for the emperor--schoolbooks talked about regarding life as lightly as a cherry blossom, and by the end a good part of that duty did consist of simply enduring--when the emperor spoke to the nation announcing the surrender he told them that they had to endure the unendurable.
no subject
Date: 28 Jul 2010 11:21 pm (UTC)My history stinks, pretty much. Thanks for fleshing out my sketchy grip on the facts!
no subject
Date: 29 Jul 2010 02:42 am (UTC)That said, you're welcome. It's kind of my specialty, and I do love the chance to blather about it. ^^
no subject
Date: 29 Jul 2010 03:10 am (UTC)Perhaps I mean society instead of culture? I dunno.
no subject
Date: 29 Jul 2010 03:21 am (UTC)And yeah, that society/culture distinction is hard to draw too.
no subject
Date: 29 Jul 2010 08:46 pm (UTC)Maybe that's because we're American, so we don't find the "giant democracy" thing all that earth-shattering -- it's not a significant change for us, since we're already there.
That "make the world" trend/drive is one that's always intrigued me, since studying Native American cultures and the anthro professor noting that the three major impacts on the New World -- Spain, France, and England -- had radically different understandings of what one does with such a resource-rich land.
Spain wanted to strip it of all resources (animal, vegetable, mineral, and human, by way of military only) and ditch the country when done; France saw it as a business deal (send traders to purchase resources, priests to record but not necessarily to convert, and keep families at home). England's policy is best summed up from a throwaway line in an otherwise throwaway movie (Last of the Mohicans) when one of the British officers complains of special allowances granted to settlers that, "I thought Britain's policy was to make the world British."
I've always remembered that line, when anyone mentions the "communism spreads, Vietnam, Cuba, blah blah blah" argument, or the idea of making the world a big honking democracy. Nutshell: "our policy is to make the world us." When this is your socio-cultural motivation, then you're more likely to assume that it's the same for others, much like a dishonest person is more likely to suspect and expect dishonesty from others.
On the face of it (as I understand it) Russia was definitely doing the expansion thing, and China was on guard against it (as it always had been, for danger from that northwestern corner), and so was Japan. Perhaps somewhere in there Japan incorporated this consume/absorb-everything mindset into its own perceptions, which is of curiosity (and outside this post's scope and certainly outside my expertise or even general knowledge!) seeing how for centuries Japan doesn't seem to have really had any significant externally-directed colonization goals outside, perhaps, the capture/control of all its islands. But to stretch forth into Korea, China, and Russia? That's very much a 20th-century thing, it seems.
no subject
Date: 29 Jul 2010 08:24 pm (UTC)Ayup. I was pretty much trying to say that without saying it, since it's a difficult and complex issue anyway, and a lot of people have a lot of different feelings (not just facts) about what led up to, what happened, and what resulted. I wasn't really up to a hornet's nest of one way or the other, so I left it wide-open for anyone reading to connect the dots on their own.
I'm not sure I make analysis interesting... maybe you just like the round-about question-raising version instead of the kind that delivers all the answers?