In his letter to Captain Butler regard to the sack of the Summer Palace, Victor Hugo writes that “Governments are sometimes bandits, peoples never”. This is my impression after watching Hoaglund’s ANPO, Art X War: The Art of Resistance and Mikami’s We Shall Overcome. Some of my grandparents’ families died in the Second Sino-Japanese War, my grandparents have always been hostile to Japanese. These two movies strike me that when we talk about politics, it is necessary to distinguish the people from the nation. While in China there are many protesters against Japan, in Japan there are dissenters of Japanese government, too: in ANPO, Art X War: The Art of Resistance, using their art, artists protest against the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and …show more content…
First, the solidarity of protesters does not equal to the solidarity of Japan. As the title of the film ANPO, Art X War: The Art of Resistance suggests, art is a powerful tool to resist war. While the title probably means painters like Ishii Shigeo use art to reflect upon the past and to express his opposition, the movie as a whole also suggests that a medium film is also a great way to resist war. Just as in other medium such as paintings and novels, a movie cannot reflect all perspectives and hence is more or less biased. In ANPO, Art X War: The Art of Resistance, one speaker says “the people in those huge crowds were all there for different reasons, but the huge uniting theme was: We will not go back to war” (Hoaglund). In We Shall Overcome, residents of Okinawa seem to be united, too. In order to stop trunks that transport materials for the construction of the new US military base, protestors lay down down on the road in a line, holding the previous ones’ feet with their hands. As one of the protestors says, “[they] chose identity over ideology. United [they]’ll accomplish [their] goal!” (Mikami) Although ANPO, Art X War: The Art of Resistance and We Shall Overcome feature lots of activists who oppose war, that does not mean that the majority of the population in Japan are against war and the construction of the US military base. In fact, according to …show more content…
However, I think the motive is important when we consider Japan’s territorial disputes with Korea and China. In his article “Territorial disputes with Korea and China — Small islets, enduring conflicts”, Selden suggests that Japan’s territorial disputes can best be solved by compromises among involved nations. However, Selden also observes, “Koreans’ deep resentment and an identity politics rooted in anti-Japanese nationalism, represent a significant barrier to accommodation” (357), not to mention China and Japan. In the latter case, “the official and popular discourse in China (PRC and Taiwan) and Japan is driven by nationalistic impulses that tend to marginalize proponents of strategic compromise”
In the first chapter of his book “Triangular Relations and the Pacific War” Hasegawa details American, Japanese, and Russian Relations prior to the Second World War up until shortly after the Yalta Conference. He summarizes Russo-Japanese relations from the founding of Vladivostok to the Russian loss in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, presenting the ominous background in diplomatic relations before the founding of the Soviet Union. Hasegawa then details the aggressive actions taken by Japan in China and the Pacific during the 1930s, along with the hardline stance taken by the United States against such actions in comparison with the Soviet strategy of appeasement. The promise by the Soviet Union to join the Pacific War as well as the Manhattan project and Japanese peace activists are discussed as Hasegawa details wartime relations.
Clausewitz’s thoughts on war termination effectively summarize the situation for the Japanese and Russian Empires preceding peace negotiations, “Inability to carry on the struggle can, in practice, be replaced by two other grounds for making peace: the first is the improbability of victory; the second is its unacceptable cost.” (Clausewitz, 91). The Japanese effectively identified their culminating point of victory and predicted that continued success would be highly improbable. The Russian Empire had the means to eventually turn the tide of the war, but the cost to do this was unacceptable. As a result, both chose to negotiate peace while continuing to take steps to improve their negotiating position. The Russo-Japanese War highlights the Japanese Empire’s ability to effectively plan, execute and negotiate the termination of a war, despite being considered a vastly inferior power at the onset of war.
The Japanese government believed that the only way to solve its economic and demographic problems was to expand into its neighbor’s territory and take over its import market, mostly pointed at China. To put an end on that the United States put economic sanctions and trade embargoes. We believed that if we cut off their resources and their source of federal income than they would have no choice but to pull back and surrender. But the
Fallows, James. "After Centuries of Japanese Isoation, a Fateful Meeting of East and West." {Smithsonian} July 1994: 20-33.
... in a common effort that contributed to protest activities. The photograph also uses tension to portray the two conflicting ideologies. There is visible tension between the guardsmen and the protestors; the guns represent war and violence while the flowers represent peace, love and nature. The National Guardsmen also look very uneasy while the protestors look content and comfortable. The union of the two creates tension in this photograph because they are so meaningful alone, making this photograph a very iconic image of the time.
Gandhi and Mao Zedong had different ideas when it came to the use of violence. Mao believed that “Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.” (reading packet, 12) What this means is that force is absolutely necessary and the outcome of force is violence. Mao is in total agreement with violence and sees the people opposing the movements he is favoring as “paper tigers”. As in, at first, these rebels might seem terrifying, but in reality, they are helpless and harmless. Mao actually blames the Hunan landlords and the higher, wealthier class for a bloody battle between the peasants and the landlords. He said that for a long time now, the wealthier class ha...
Two oceans to the East, Japan was deep into a war of its own. Japanese forces were concentrated on the Chinese front to conquer and obtain. As a result of its unpopular declaration of war...
...and self defence. The occupation of Manchuria and territories in the south, led to fierce tensions between Japan and the western nations. In an attempt to resolve these differences, Japanese leaders tried very hard to reach peace thru negations while making many concessions along the way. The felt however, that the USA was negotiating in bad faith due to hostilities that it held against Japan. As time passed, the negations were not able to bring these nations any closer to peace. Instead, Japanese leaders saw the passage of time as being detrimental to their survival. They viewed the passage of time as an opportunity for the USA to better prepare for war. All of these events led Japanese to believe that their nations’ existence was in jeopardy. Essentially, Japan was left with the choice of attacking or defending as war had become inevitable; they chose to attack.
Japan had always been an ally of the United States. Japan tried to collect their share of treasure from Versailles. Japan ran into some troubles, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson rejected Japan’s claim to German concessions in Shantung. Duan Qirui, a Chinese warlord and politician had borrowed money from Japan to make China’s army stronger. Japan used that loan and wanted it to be repaid by getting the concessions in Shantung. In 1921, at the Naval Conference the US pressured the Britain’s to end their 20 year alliance with the Japanese. Japan was now isolated, Stalin’s unhappy empire to the north, t...
Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works : The Strategic Logic of
"Q&A: China-Japan islands row." BBC News. N.p., 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 26 Apr. 2014. .
1945 marked the end of World War II and the end of Japan’s reign in Korea. Korea had been under Japanese rule since the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty in 1910. During this time, Korea had been brutally treated by Japan. The Korean language was suppressed as well as traditional Korean culture. Japan forced Korean people to take Japanese surnames and took many “comfort women” otherwise known as sex slaves for the Japanese military. As a result, the diplomatic relations between Korea and Japan were strained. Japan was determined to forget the past and deny many of the things that happened while Korea was determined to not move past it. There have been disputes between the two countries about acknowledging comfort women and territories, many sprouting up from World War II and before. While there has been improvement, the relationship between Japan and Korea is strained, mainly due to Japan’s unwillingness to remember and apologize for the past and Korea’s stubbornness to not move on from the past.
The Manchurian incident was a turning point in Japanese history in which it abandoned its somewhat general policy of cooperation and peace and instead chose to pursue their personal interests in Asia (S,191). The Japanese interest in China was evident even before its invasion in 1931. In both the Sino Japanese war from 1894 to 1905 as well as the Russo-Japanese War from 1904 to 1905 Japan secured specific locations in Manchuria and other areas in China (U,351). Overall, the consensus for the extensive needs of the empire ultimately drove its policy making until the end of World War 2. To take control of what they believed to be the most mineral rich section of China in which they controlled expansive holdings in such as the South Manchurian Railroad, officers part of the Kwantung Army that were stationed there hatched a plan that would become to be known as the Manchurian Crisis. On September 18th 1931, Japanese soldiers located at the South Manchurian Railroad set off an explosive that they blamed on China (launching both nations into hostile relations for years to come.?? (P,115)) The Japanese invaded Japanese Invaded Chinese controlled Manchuria in 1931 because they wanted to accommodate the rising of the Japanese population, obtain more natural resources, and to stimulate their nearly collapsed economy.
Our preliminary class gave a brief, yet detailed outline of major events affecting the East Asian region. Within that class, prompted by our limited geographical knowledge of Asia, we were given a fundamental explanation of the geographical locations of the various events taking place in the region. In subsequent classes, we were introduced to the major wars, political shifts, and economic interests which shaped Japan, China and Korea to what they are today. We examined the paradigm of pre-modern Japanese governance, the Shogunate, and the trained warriors which defended lord and land, Samurai. In addition, we examined the socio-economic classes of Medieval Japan, which included the Samurai, peasants, craftsmen, and the merchants. We also examined pre-1945 Japan’s policies toward foreign entities, notably the Sakoku Policy, which sought to expunge all foreign presence and commerce in an effort to protect its borders and culture. 1945, however, saw ...
“Japan had another ingredient useful for imperial expansion-arrogance- a view of their country as the land favored by the gods, the land that others should recognize as superior” (Hane, 2).