From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Recommend History Books/Authors?
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:38:28 GMT

In article <jwb.726385740@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au> jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes:
>keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka) writes:
>
>>How about looking at the period from 1853 when Commodore Perry arrived
>>in Japan demanding the opening of the country and the Japanese first
>>attempt to turn a table from a status of a potential colony (a la 
>>Chin Dynasty) to a colonial power to be reckoned with by other
>>Western powers in the context of global politics?  You can't
>>get a whole picture if you're nitpicking local developments in 
>>isolation from the rest of the world.  

>The colonial status thing was a very real threat to Japan. The 
>post-Perry treaties forced non-application of Japanese law to visiting
>Brits, Americans, etc. which was both an insult and a common precursor
>to "send in the marines to protect our nationals" moves.

??? While the extra-territorial treaties were hard for the Japanese to swallow,
it was also the US who first proposed lifting those treaties (or unilaterally
giving up its extraterritorial status) in 1876, a proposal that was turned down
by the JAPANESE government. (And the legal juristiction was to be given over
COMPLETELY to the Japanese was a formal legal system had been introduced, in
ALL the extra-territorial treaties.)

>>During 1853-1890s, there
>>were momentous events in the USA; the Civil War, which perhaps gave
>>Japan an extra time to shape up the nation because the USA was
>>going through a painful process of division/reunion of the nation.

>Hmmm, possibly only true if the US had been the sole player. You have
>taken the typical US-centric view of things, but in fact Britain, Russia
>and France had also been chipping away too. It was just that Perry turned
>up with the most guns and arrogance.

Hmm. How had they been chipping away? While there is no doubt that they wanted
some sort of treaty with Japan, it is a fact that it was the Americans who
caused Japan to reconsider its status; the efforts of the other countries were
ignored.

>The *real* affect of the US civil war was to give Britain, France,
>Germany, etc. a free run for about 20 years, before the US got itself
>sorted out. When one reads the history of Japan 1860-1880, one
>is struck by the prominent role of Britain and the relative absence
>of Americans.

Not really that surprising. The Japanese have a tendency to emulate what they
perceive as the most powerful/best/whatever nation or industry. At that
time, the US MAY in have been the most powerful nation, but Britain's inter-
national presence was undoubtedly much greater than ours.

>> Japanese sent massive numbers of young students to 
>>Western countries (hedging risks) and imported what they considered
>>suitable for the countries. (The decimal currency and a system of
>>the central bank from the USA; 

>Actually lots of European countries were decimal then, and as for
>a central bank, well Hamilton will be spinning in his grave. I think
>you'll find the Olde Lady of Threadneedle Street was the model.

>>Military system first from France then
>>Prussia; Railroad second-hand from UK.  Telephone and Postal Services
>>from somewhere else. AT&T? just kidding.)  
>
>Pommgolia again. Britain also supplied most of the shipping and Navy.

Not according to Chamberlain; the French played a very prominent role, as did
the US.

>Japan also got a mainly French legal structure and, with massive 
>repercussions in this century, a Prussian-style constitution.
>
>Most good histories deal with this era quite well. Storrie is a good
>place to start.

So is Chamberlain.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.