From: x0y3510@tamuts.tamu.edu (Xuejun Yang)
Subject: Re: An open letter to the Emperor Akihito of Japa
Organization: ~/lib/organization
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:27:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.181431.5455@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <jwb.714871597@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au> jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes:
>>smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>>
>>>>A disinterested study of the history of that area  leads one, IMHO, to the
>>>>inescapable conclusion that the Japanese oligarchy was hell-bent on "intruding"
>>>>on China from before the Sino-Japanese war of the 1890s...
>>
>>>In light of the fact that Britian, Germany, and a few other western powers had
>>>already "intruded" into China from monetary gain I suspect that it could be
>>>argued that Japan was simply taking a piece of the pie for themselves.
>
>>>I am not suggesting that this justifies anything. I am only pointing out that
>>>Japan was not the only country eating away at China's sovereignty.
>
>>You are absolutely correct. One of the (many) injustices that peeved the Japanese
>>government late in the last century and in the first half of this one was the way
>>the western "powers" considered they had a god-given right to carve out colonial
>>empires in Asia, and no-one else did. The Intervention in which the UK, France,
>>Germany and Russia forced Japan to give up some of the Chinese territory they 
>>snatched in the 1890s was racially inspired, to put it mildly.
>
>An observer at the time (my favorite, Mr Chamberlain) while pointing out the
>difficulties Japan had being accepted by the Western powers (see previous
>post on "Treaties") as a non-white, non-Christian nation, does not feel this
>to be racially motivated. In fact, he goes to great lengths to point out 
>that much of this resitance was due to the fact that they saw something they
>could themselves grab (Germany 2 years later would grab Kiao-chow). Japan
>apparantly learned her lesson, and for the next war she had allies lined up
>on her side.
>
>>Ironically, the nation that first taught Japan that international diplomacy
>>was most effectively carried out at gun-point was the US. The memories of
>>Commodore Perry and the Black Ships lasted a long time.
>
>Had China been so galvanized by the early British gunboats, one wonders how
>different the history of the region might have been.
>
>In any event, the two froms of "gunboat diplomacy" were very different, at 
>least as regards Britain in China and the US in Japan. The US was more 
>interested in procuring safe passage for its shipwrecked crews and more in the
>way of trade. The British were more concerned with taking actual possesion
>of territories. This may, of course, be largely due to the difference in the
>times of those 2 encounters.
>
>Mike
>
>-- 
>Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 

Wrong! The U.S. was more civilized in that it want free trade while
Britain tried to grab all of China's wealth by illegal narcotics
traficking(government-sponsored). What do you think how we had the
Opium war and what Hong Kong was originally intended for?

Xref: sparky soc.culture.japan:7640 soc.culture.china:24637 soc.history:8006