General Japanese Culture Thread

Well, what about when they went out to conquer? Toyotomi Hideyoshi was hardly the first, or the last.

Wait. I know the katana obsession is recent, but I am pretty sure the Samurai did not use bow and arrow exclusively before either. Another popular weapon, if I am not mistaken, was the lance. And the bow and arrow guys still carried swords regardless. One still need to be able to fight if engaged in close combat, after all.

Anyway, the Japanese obsession with katana is not weirder, or different, than the similar fascination US Americans have with guns.

You say as if the Japanese were always the invaded ones, when I am pretty sure it was usually the opposite until fairly recently.

I love halberds.

That almost never happened. During the samurai era, a unified Japan only invaded outside of their islands once. Individual warlords may have had their own squabbles here and there, but the invasion of Korea was the only major military action that the island-state of Japan ever embarked upon.

Further, the Japanese have long had a "defender complex", whereupon they felt that their people, culture, ideals, and land were constantly on the defensive against outsiders. There was a constant pattern of absorption, and then rejection, of foreign influence in art, philosophy, religion, and other things. Japan has a history of being fascinated with the world outside of its island, while at the same time treating it as disruptive to their culture.

The American fascination with guns is something of a similar thing, but exists for different reasons. Japan's fascination with swords is borne from centuries of class symbolism whereas owning a sword and displaying your skill with one was a sign of nobility and a measure of pride. Americans like guns partly because of romanced ideals of Revolution by an able-bodied volunteer army as well as similar ideals about the West. Both Japan and America have noted the similarities between the two, as Japanese samurai media and American cowboy media have often borrowed from each other.

The Wall of Weapons was also a great sign of class and wealth in the US. That's how you showed your family was important. That and buying commissions.

I don't think that's true. Possessing a large number of firearms is only a status symbol within certain fringe groups, like survivalists, hunters, or gun enthusiasts. For most US residents, having a lot of guns just makes you seem weird. This is true in both the US and Japan currently, regardless of the weapon.

But in ancient Japan, being good with a sword was the bare-basic expectation of a samurai. Being good with a sword marked you as being worthy of your samurai class and secured the status of yourself and your family. Samurai were expected to be good at everything, technically (from art to literature to academics), but mastering a sword was the bare minimum.

Part of the difference is that America has never had a true warrior-noble culture. Soldiers are given certain privileges and responsibilities, but it's seen as a position of civil service. In truth, serving the public trust was a distant second job to the samurai outside of complete loyalty to their lord. This is even different from medieval knights, because as was said before the true obsession in the art of the sword didn't start until the Tokugawa era unified Japan and brought a relative peace. For example, in the era before, Oda Nobunaga enthusiastically preferred guns moreso than swords.

However, partially as a measure of control, a sword-worship was created alongside a ban on ownership of swords aside from samurai, who in turn received the most extensive training. Because of this, a better comparison to America would be the American obsession with artillery and war vehicles; Americans think tanks, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and drones are really cool and the fact that they own more of them than any other nation is considered a point of pride. But at the same time, the majority of civilians neither own them or will operate them in their lifetimes, and are complacent about their government spending large portions of the budget on building them and training a selective few who will use them.

edited 11th Jun '14 10:22:36 AM by NihonJinronGakusei

This is not to say that they didn't rapidly adapt new technologies and modes of warfare as soon as they were introduced to them. The key part is that their isolation meant it might have taken longer to get introduced, but they started using guns in the 1400s, cribbed from Portuguese, and later Spanish, sailors. The Tokugawa era was special in that regard because it was both enforced peace and enforced isolation, so it crystalized an era where battle simply didn't happen, and so Samurai could be respected without having any of the negative memories of constant civil warfare. In that way, Tokugawa Japan was similar to postwar Japan, where the self-styled warrior culture was actually one of the most peaceful societies on the planet, and therefore they could have "healthy" warrior fantasies (as opposed to "unhealthy" like an Iraqi boy fantasizing about joining ISIS)

Too true. That also describes America between WW 2 and Vietnam, as well as America between Vietnam and Iraq. At the end of both eras, the realities of military conflict were greatly at odds with the fanciful memories of yesteryear.

Early Japanese media intentionally avoided aggrandizing warrior culture or old samurai virtues in part because of a social backlash against it following the collapse of the Empire as well as an outright ban on anything which glorified military action or warrior values that was imposed during American Occupation.

Not surprisingly, along with the trending of romantic warrior culture in media like Shounen manga, there's a returning desire for a true Japanese military.

edited 11th Jun '14 10:19:41 AM by NihonJinronGakusei

Heck, Attack On Titan can feel like commentary on that state of affairs... Then again, "We Have Become Complacent" has been a thing since the days of Leiji Matsumoto.

Very loosely indeed, because the Kingdom in aot is hardly sitting on their thumbs: their military (when actually trained and not just sending out cannon fodder) is quite capable of pulling off successful operations, but they do not want to fight the enemy on their terms. If aot were a metaphor for what Japan "should" do, Eren's dad would have been loudly advocating that the government should mass-produce shifters to go out and fight the titans.

Yes. Samurai use other weapon other than bow and arrow, but bow and arrow is THE weapon that signify samurai/professional warrior in most Japanese history.

this probably also function of class and status, peasant could use lance, sword or bow and arrow, but "traditional" samurai fighting, using bow and arrow while riding, is certainly professional/elite skill.

lance on horseback is apparently appear very late in Japan. it become specialty of Takeda clan horsemen from Kai province under Takeda Shingen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABjutsu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yabusame#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeda_clan#Takeda_Shingen

Takeda Shingen is such a badass...

The sumurai with bows thing is why almost every anime school has an archery club. It's an important cultural keystone, and not having it would be like an American school not having a baseball team—yeah, it can happen, but it's kinda weird.

The thing about archery was that it was based on a necessity of war. As I mentioned before, warrior culture is typically a result of innovations and countermeasures, fueled by a desperate need to win. Japan only had a little of that last part, and thus they were able to maintain certain "rules" of battle between sides.

The peace of the Tokugawa era practically eliminated the bow from its place atop the warrior culture, because sword skills became more indicative of the caste system. Though the bow had been the Japanese's most prided weapon for centuries before that, the nihonto (Japanese sword) took its place and remains to this day the weapon associated with "Japan" (although I'd argue that in the West, the shuriken or "ninja star" is what the layperson would think of thanks to 1980s films).

Technically a shuriken is anything you can throw. Stars have the advantage that no matter how it lands, it'll be with a pointy bit. But shuriken were more for We Need a Distraction than for actual attacking.

That's why I made the distinction of saying it was a Western perception.

Yeah, I seem to recall reading that a lot of shuriken were more like small metal rods that you could easily conceal and throw in the dark to make some distracting noise (throw it at a window, a garbage can, or a cat.

And now for the dark side of Japanese culture. Adoption in Japan Part 1: Why are there so many kids in orphanages?. It's not so much that so many children are being raised in orphanages, but what this example reveals about Japanese cultural attitudes, values and practices; and esp. attitudes about the family.

"...In other cases, they will remain in institutions from birth until adulthood, never meeting their parents. Because parents maintain legal rights to the children, they are unable to be adopted. The emphasis on maintaining legal custody for biological parents is so strong that even in cases where a baby is found abandoned in a train station locker or in a park, the local courts may rule that the baby is unavailable for adoption just in case the biological parent ever comes looking for them..."

Apparently, a lot of these kids are in "orphanages" not because they are orphans, but because they were victims of physical abuse at home. Yet legally the parents are able to take their children back any time they want. There are several recent cases where children died as a result of parental abuse, and the parents were given relatively mild sentences.

"There is also little awareness of child abuse as a social issue. A 1996 article quotes Tsuzura Masako, then head of the Tokyo child welfare office, denying over the course of several years that child abuse existed; despite her own office taking hundreds of calls a year relating to child abuse. Her exact words: “Child abuse? There is no such thing. Parents hitting their own kids is just a temporary thing. It’s just discipline.” Abuse is unlikely to make it to court until it becomes fatal, and even then penalties are light."

Please note that I am not trying to undermine anyone's admiration for Japanese culture, which is a very strong one with a great many positive qualities to offer. But if you want a well-rounded understanding of a society, then you have to look at the dark along with the good, and try to figure out how it all ties together. People seeking to understand American culture have to find a way to reconcile our celebration of the "can do" individual with the poor treatment of marginalized populations. Anyone seeking to understand Japan would do well to take a moment to consider both the strengths and the weaknesses of their way of promoting the family.

By the way, I find that blog to be absolutely fascinating. She's a Westerner who has lived and worked (as a social worker) in Japan for several years. I highly recommend browsing some of her other entries. Her insight into gender relations is also very compelling.

edited 20th Jun '14 7:23:43 PM by demarquis

Japan tends to view these matters similarly to a lot of other "traditional" societies: matters at home are to be resolved in the home. It's not really the state's job to tell you to not hit your kids.

Though of course, this only extends to certain areas. While Japan is remarkably indifferent on homosexuality (neither publicly opposed nor publicly supportive), they are rabidly anti-recreational-drugs to a degree that would make even the DEA raise an eyebrow.

As you might expect, there's a significant generational gap on homosexuality. 83% of 18 to 29 year olds think it should be accepted by society, whereas only 39% of those 50+ do.

Personally, I say it's all the yaoi and yuri the kids are reading these days.

edited 20th Jun '14 8:35:56 PM by majoraoftime

I seriously doubt that a certain type of cartoon fetish porn is the reason for the gay rights movement gaining ground.

Eh, it might have some effect, but it's certainly too romanticized to really help. It's mostly the other way around; people who think homosexuality is a sin are not going to buy yaoi.

It's not just porn, it's a whole genre ranging from ineffectual WAFF to hardcore porno, to serious stories of homosexual relationships of both categories. I'd say the general acceptance is due to factors influencing increasing acceptance worldwide, but positive media portrayals in Japanese comics certainly can't hurt (especially because a lot of these comics do, indeed, take the relationship aspect seriously, something you don't find in a lot of American media).

edited 20th Jun '14 8:49:47 PM by Ogodei

That was a joke. I guess I should have denoted that in some fashion. But yeah, I doubt it's a serious factor. Still, kind of interesting (but hardly surprising) there's such a big gulf in opinion.

Still, I find it annoying that, outside of those genres, the general approach in fiction is Queer People Are Funny. There's even a very specific archetype; the character is Macho Camp, with very well-developed muscles, but wears make-up and lipstick/gloss and jewelry and perhaps some female accessories like laces and such. They speak with an affected, moany accent, always the same, and use female pronouns in grammar, especially "Watakushi". They tend to be artists, especially chefs or bakers, with a very strong artiste attitude about their work. They may pepper their speech with Gratuitous Foreign Language.