Topical Analysis on Japan's Revolution - Essay Example

Topical Analysis on Japan's revolution Introduction Japan’s revolution, dubbed ‘Meiji restoration’, took place following numerous reforms instituted by the Japanese government late in the 19th century. The subsequent events constituted the most dramatic events to ever happen in the modern history of Japan. It was in the Japanese revolution when universal education system was established. Moreover, during this revolution the navy and the army were established as well as the establishment of an effective administrative bureaucracy both locally and nationally. The Japanese revolution was multifaceted and culminated in Japan becoming a modern state. There are numerous shortcomings in the book by Norman (2000) as there lacks a detailed explanation of the nature of the Japanese revolution1. Discussions Shortcomings of EH Norman's Article EH Norman’s article on the Japanese revolution has major shortcomings. There is scant details regarding the nature in which the Japanese people rose up to protect the country from being colonized like East Asia countries such as China. Moreover, Norman fails to articulate the patriotism and selflessness that was exhibited by the Japanese people in order to salvage their country as it was facing an imminent danger from the west. Particular, the United States was determined to impose its western ideologies to this society, notwithstanding the vehement opposition from its inhabitants. The Japanese society demonstrated the desire to defend its country by toppling the Tokugawa regime as shown by the nature in which the new leaders transformed the society with numerous changes in the infrastructure and the general modernization of the Japanese society to levels of admiration by other countries2. The Japanese revolution developed by EH Norman treats the Samurai as a singular group notwithstanding the vital links it had with leaders of the Shokugawa regime. It is important to note that the Samurai were not only interested in bringing change in the Japanese society but also in dismantling the Shokugawa elite who had marginalized the majority in the Japanese society by looting the country’s resources to lead lavish lifestyles. Furthermore, the move whereby the new leaders welcomed the western nations to help them reach their ideal levels of development reveals that there was animosity within the Shokugawa ranks3. In order to understand the nature of the Meiji restoration, there is the need to look at the relationship between the merchants and the lower samurais. Both parties were anti-Tokugawa forces who were determined to annihilate the Tokugawa regime, with the lower samurais being vested with the leadership that would yield desired societal changes. The lower Samurais had superseded the ranks of the Samurai in order to become the spokesmen in this society. The Meiji restoration was a shift of the Japanese government to the upper samurai to lower samurai. In achieving this political control, the lower samurais supplied the ablest individuals such as Ito Hirobumi, Saigo Takamori, Inoue Kaoru and Omura Masujiro. The lower samurai achieved this through the financial help of the merchants. Merchants such as Konoike, Iwasaki, Shimada and Ono made immense contributions through financial donations. Hence, it is apparent that the Meiji restoration was achieved through a coalition between the lower samurai and merchant class. Moreover, the Feudal-merchant coalition was a cornerstone in the Japanese revolution. Unlike the class struggle that existed in western countries such as a France and England, the scenario in Japan was different. Marxists argue that capitalist bourgeoisie rise against feudal aristocrats in a bid to seize political power from them. The case in Japan was characterized by a collaboration between the aristocracy and the merchant classes. Hence, the Samurai and the merchant class had a symbiotic relation and they needed each other. In the Tokugawa system, the merchants were largely dependent on the daimyo and their treasurers. They saw livelihood as being linked to noble and warrior classes, who were debtors and customers. This made it impossible for direct attack of the system. Daimyos also looked up to greater merchants for financial assistance. The mixing and matching that took place between the merchant classes and the warriors shows that merchants were able to infiltrate vital positions within the hierarchy and this was important in strengthening the cooperation between the leaders of the restoration movement and Osaka merchants4. EH Norman has depicted the peasants as being unemancipated during the Meiji era as they were prime targets of typical restrictions. The peasants also had to shoulder numerous expenses during the new regime. This was due to the fact that Japan was then an agricultural country and the treasury of the Japanese government was heavily depleted to the extent that it depended on the loans emanating from wealthy merchants. Nevertheless, the peasants had a vital role in the new regime as it heavily depended on agriculture as a source of revenue. The burdens that peasants continued to face even under the new regime compelled them to stage numerous protests during the first days of the restoration5. Account of the Japanese Revolution The Meiji Restoration took place in 1868 and it marked the genesis of a Japan’s turn away from primitive and medieval patterns of development. The primitive forms of development had been characterized by domination of every aspect of the Japanese society by the Samurai. This restoration was more than a coup d’etat as it forced the resignation of the Tokugawa which had reigned from 1600 to 1868. Emperor Meiji was elevated as a teenager to take sovereign administrative rule. Away from the narrow view presented by Norman (2000), the Meiji restoration was an expansive phenomenon and more than a regime change6. The primary steps instituted in the wake of disillusionment with the Tokugawa regime initiated a transformation, which was revolutionary and was achieved through changes instituted in the Meiji period (1868-1912). This revolution was comparable to the introduction of Buddhism and the Chinese civilization that took place in mid-sixteenth century. The difference between the Japanese revolution and the Chinese civilization was that the former took place later in the mid-nineteenth century with the Japanese model bringing about a revolution that was responsible for the westernization of every major aspect of Japan’s national life7. In the 1850’s, the Tokugawa shoguns were worried about the type of domination that had occurred in the Philippines and hence made them minimize their contacts with the western nations. During this regime the only western power that had the permission to trade with the Japanese merchants was the Dutch. However, the operations of this nation were restricted to Dejima Island, which was artificially created to limit the Dutch presence on Japan. Since maritime technology was highly dependent on the winds, the Japanese was able to able to exclude western nations in its prospects. However, after the development of vessels powered by steam that had the capacity of carrying cannons, the western nations were able to achieve significant dominance in East Asia without opposition8. The Tokugawa regime was in no position to resist advances from the western nations as in 1852 it was compelled to sign treaties that promoted exchanges between the United States and Japan. Such a move was in violation to Tokugawa’s raison d’etre as main objective of this regime was to defend Japan against incursions from barbarians. Moreover, the aforementioned treaty marked the beginning of the end of Tokugawa regime as it received unrelenting critiques from oppositional forces. Subsequently, opposition did emerge from the Stsuma and Choshu domains, which were centers for animosity towards the Tokugawa. Following the military defeat of Tokugawa, the administrative authority was vested in Emperor Meiji and his supporters9. The Japanese revolution was characterized by social changes such as the overhauling of the regime that had instituted hereditary social hierarchies. Tokugawa had decreed these hierarchies. In the Economical front, the new imperial regime created the Yen, which became the first Japan’s national currency. Moreover, the Bank of Japan was created in order to control economic growth in Japan. Through the development of a modern and centralized economy, there was a revolutionary transformation of the previous economic relations. Before this, there existed a primitive form of national currency10. During the revolution, the imperial regime instituted an industrial revolution through the promotion of development of heavy industries such as rail transport, shipping, and mining. Political changes that came with the new regime included the creation of a political system that was constitutionally defined and fully representative. Through the Meiji government, compulsory elementary education was instituted. This form of education was adopted by schools, which had been created throughout the nation and had been established through the western style of conscript force. The new schools were established and developed by Yamagata Aritomo in order to replace the Samurai estates that had been abolished during the Meiji restoration11. Meiji forces that were modeled after Prussian military became effective as they defeated internal rebellions and armies of larger nations. An example of their success was in 1894-1895 during the war between Japan and China and in the war between Russia and Japan that took place in 1905. Following these victories, Japan received international respect it had long searched for. Furthermore, at the end of the Meiji period, Japan had achieved the recognition of an imperial and a military power in East Asia12. Geopolitically, there occurred significant reconfiguration in Japan during the Meiji period. The first geopolitical change was the move of the nation’s capital from Kyoto, which had been the capital for over a millennium to Edo, which was the capital of Tokugawa. Edo was then been renamed to Tokyo. Geopolitical changes were not only limited to the capital but also occurred in the countryside. Old daimyo domains were replaced by imperial prefectures. Even before the end of the Meiji period, Japanese empire had expanded tremendously through the acquisition of Taiwan in 1895 during the war between China and Japan and the 1910 annexation of Korea as a result of the war between Japan and Russia. These developments made Japan to become a strategic player in the military alliances world. In 1902, the Anglo-Japanese alliance was formed in which the two parties pledged to offer support to each other in the face of military aggression. The Japanese revolution was a complete transformation of Japan. The account presented by Norman (2000) fails to reveal the real reasons behind this transformation. The view that the enlightened statesmen who were responsible for the reformation, were motivated by the desire to ameliorate threats emanating from western powers is narrow. This is because upon the ousting of the Tokugawa regime, the new leaders when ahead to invite foreign ideologies in attempt to keep in pace with their levels of development. Moreover, most of the leaders that overhauled the Samurai Tokugawa regime belonged to the upper and middle portions of the Samurai hierarchy and had lots of privileges in the old regime13. The revolution revealed that there was animosity within the ranks of Tokugawa regime as there is no justification of having turned to the west for progress. This is despite the fact that the Japanese vehemently opposed the United States bid to instill their ideologies. It is apparent that the Japanese might have turned to the west in order to gain strength by detecting flaws within the western ranks. Since the Japanese were nationalists and rational bureaucrats, they were able to find social and economic institutions in the western nations, which served their interests. These institutions were imported to Japan14. Norman (2000) fails to indicate the underlying historical principles that led to the ousting of the Tokugawa regime despite its opposition to western threat of their hegemony. Moreover, the author does not explain the massive changes that followed the revolution. The leaders of the revolution acted on the behalf of the Japanese society and the early Japanese intelligentsia. The leading members of the latter class were spiritually tormented and materially deprived by the operations of aristocratic system, which amassed privileges and waste public resources by conducting ravish ceremonies. The intelligent leaders were able to fashion the elements of intellectual traditions in order to compel ideological support to further their social complaints. Furthermore, the new leaders had developed social change notions in a similar manner to those implemented in the Meiji era and became a social program with influence even before the access to western countries’ models. As opposed to the case presented in Norman (2000), the Japanese revolution was not fuelled by external forces but resulted from domestic forces. Particularly, Choshu activists played an instrumental role despite being part of the Tokugawa systems. Several decades after the revolution, they came to play a crucial role in the new Japanese government with leaders such as Yamagata Aritomo, Ito Hirobumi and Inoue Kaoru. The aforementioned leaders formulated the modern constitution, created a diplomatic corps, founded the military and oversaw the rebuilding of a new society. The Choshu members had been a part of an active reform movement in the 1850’s and featured prominently in the domestic terrorism that took place in Japan in 1860 to 1863. Through mobilization of the Choshu army, the Bakufu lost control making the Choshu reformers to become the most effective and vigorous opponents of the Tokugawa regime. Moreover, their actions were instrumental in the demise of the Tokugawa regime15. Norman (2000) has not illuminated the main reasons behind the Japanese revolution. Ideal interests and class interests played a major role in the Japanese revolution. It is important to note that the revolutionists were motivated by the domestic wrangles to act politically first. This move was also exacerbated by material deprivations that had been suffered in the Tokugawa regime. The revolutionists were also idealistically committed to the political community’s welfare. These interests were rooted in the social conditions of most members of the Japanese society, some of whom were a part of the service intelligentsia of the Tokugawa. Some of the class conditions that affected the service intelligentsia in the Tokugawa regime to the point of uprisings were the severe disparities between the lives of the aristocrats and the service personnel. These disparities ranged from influence, dressing, and manners to customs. Particularly, the aristocrats lived in a magnificent mansion with many servants, had access to high offices notwithstanding inferior qualifications and had advantages in the law of the land, on the other hand, the rest of the Japanese society were disadvantaged in times of disputes and was at a constant struggle to live within a meager income16. Conclusion In summary, the account of the Japanese revolution was scantily presented in the article with some facts being left out. The events that contributed to the revolution emanated from within the country and brought significant changes crucial to the development of a modern Japan. The multifaceted revolution saw a universal system of education being introduced in Japan as well as the establishment of the army and the navy. It is important to note that social disparities that existed during the Tokugawa regime were primary responsible for fuelling animosity that led to the revolution. The fact that the new regime under Meiji turned to the western countries for progress reveals that the Tokugawa regime was not toppled due to its move to seek assistance from these countries but rather due to domestic squabbles. Bibliography Norman, E. Herbert. Japan's Emergence As a Modern State: Political and Economic Problems of the Meiji Period. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000. Read More