Breaking Open Japan, by George Feifer

1250 Words3 Pages

Breaking Open Japan

Feifer, George. Breaking Open Japan: Commodore Perry, Lord Abe, and American Imperialism in 1853. New York: Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2006. pp. xx, 389 p.: ill., maps; 24 cm. ISBN: 0060884320 (hardcover: alk. paper). Format: Book. Subjects: Japan Foreign relations United States /United States Foreign relations Japan.

2. A statement regarding the author: George Feifer is a native of Roxbury, Connecticut. He has written for a wide array of publications. He is a “well-known” and veteran author with many successful books. Some of the books which he has written were “Our Motherland”, “Justice in Moscow”, “Tennozan: The Battle of Okinawa”, “Moscow Farewell”, “Message from Moscow”, and last but not least, “The Girl from Petrovka” which eventually became a Hollywood film. He's written for the New Republic, the New York Times Magazine, Harper's, and the Saturday Evening Post.

3. The range of the work:

BOOKS – Reviews; IMPERIALISM,NONFICTION; United States/Japan; American Warship in Japanese Harbor; Commodore Perry, Lord Abe, and American Imperialism in 1853.

4. A summary of the contents of the book:

The story is about one of the highest clatters in both cultural and political events in time.

Four warships of America’s East Asia Squadron anchored at Uraga, in the predawn hours of July 14, 1853. This is twenty-seven miles south of Japanese capital, also known as Edo (renamed Tokyo in 1868). A prominent scholar had recently warned of people who came from the earth’s “hindmost regions” were “incapable of doing good things,” to Japan. The recent Mexican Spanish-American War, Americans has sharpened his desire for taking advantage of his wealth and power for political and commercial benefit. For al...

... middle of paper ...

... written it, had there not been such good material and insight, the text was so changing that I would have not finished the book. The dangling ideas, that is, concepts introduced but not previously explained or later followed up on, were annoying. Then there are a lot of difficult sentences and then some grammar that had to be disregarded to get the meaning. One example of a dangling idea was the paragraph that ended by saying that Abe Mashihiro had won an important victory in the appointment of his recommended defense advisor followed by a paragraph saying that the appointee was "his (Abe's) the most vocal critic." What did I miss? The concept of a victory for Abe getting a critic an influential position isn't ever clear. It could be that the author meant it in the wider circumstance that through this appointment there was no war, but that isn't clear either.

Open Document