PDA

View Full Version : Myth of the Samurai



Zoyashi
17th April 2002, 20:29
Samurai b.s.
Hello all, I've noticed that from time to time the dreaded “We must learn to be like the samurai” pops up in various threads all over e-budo. I’m a student of Japanese history and lived in Japan for several years, and all I can say is, thank god there are no samurai around. Samurai were racist, violent, brutal oppressors. Don’t like a peasant’s hat? Cut off his head. Like a woman? Rape her. Don’t want to pay your bills? Cut off the merchant’s head. Christians bothering you again? Crucify fifteen or twenty thousand of them, including children. Samurai were interesting and exotic, and parts of their legacy are worthy of emulation. But only a very minor part. In the main, they were savage killers who oppressed the other 90% of the population and believed in values opposite to the basic rights and ethics most of us hold dear. It should be noted that the time in which modern Japan most embraced “the samurai ideal” was previous to and during WWII: beheading contests, “comfort women,” the rape of Nanking, tens of thousands of Korean women forced into sexual slavery, the massacre of prisoners of war. Saying we should behave like samurai because they studied budo is like saying we should act like Nazis because they had good organizational skills.
Any thoughts?

Josh Gepner

Don Cunningham
17th April 2002, 22:42
Josh,

I think you've taken a few myths and common misconceptions and made a case which has little to do with reality.

Samurai were racist, violent, brutal oppressors.
What do you base this comment on? You mention the rape of Nanking by the Japanese invaders, but that wasn't done by any samurai. That was bushido twisted into a bizarre militaristic fantasy and then used to inspire commoners recruited into the Emperor's service.


Don’t like a peasant’s hat? Cut off his head. Like a woman? Rape her. Don’t want to pay your bills? Cut off the merchant’s head.
Actually, the samurai were regulated far more strictly than this during the Tokugawa shogunate. While commoners were mistreated and regarded with a great deal of suspicion, actual incidents like you describe were far less common than the popular media would suggest.

In fact, there are reports from Cmdr. Perry's entourage and those who followed which indicate that Japan was a very peaceful and orderly society. It certainly was much safer for the average citizen than comparable European communities from the same period.

I have no doubt that many samurai were brutal, inhumane, and maybe somewhat like you describe. The vast majority, however, were not much more than bureaucrats and more concerned with the basics of day-to-day living than with brutalizing their infrastructure. During the Edo period, many of them were unable and certainly unwilling to use the swords which they wore as a badge of their elite status.

Frankly, I think you should study more Japanese history instead of listening to those who base their opinions on fantasy and imagination.

Zoyashi
18th April 2002, 21:08
Mr. Cunningham,
Please don’t be so rude as to suggest I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’ve studied Japanese history for years in an academic setting, I’ve lived in Japan, I speak Japanese. It’s not like I just read “Shogun” and decided to post.

I’ll start first with something you didn’t disagree with:
*Oppression of religious minorities – 15-20,000 Christians crucified. Men, women, and children. This alone should be enough to turn most people off of the ideal of the samurai. That’s a lot of people massacred.

Now, on to the meat of your argument: On what do I base my statement that samurai were racist? On the fact that Koreans and Chinese were treated as subhuman, that huge mounds of their severed ears were built after their countries were savagely invaded, and that when Europeans showed up they were portrayed as having dog’s tails. The Japanese have always had a, shall we say, specialized view of the rest of the world, and feudal samurai were hardly an exception.
On what do I base my statement that they were violent oppressors? The violence is hardly in question if you examine the numbers slain in peasant ikki revolts, the practice of collecting enemies severed heads, the fact that five British merchants were killed on the Tokkaido in 1862 for not bowing deeply enough as a samurai retinue passed, etc. Bowing is a big deal in Japan, but I don’t think it’s sufficient reason for a reasonable person to chop off another persons’ head, even if they are a hated foreigner with the tail of a dog.
You wrote: “While commoners were mistreated and regarded with a great deal of suspicion, actual incidents like you describe were far less common than the popular media would suggest. In fact, there are reports from Cmdr. Perry's entourage and those who followed which indicate that Japan was a very peaceful and orderly society.”
My response is that while Japan was orderly, it was the orderliness of a totalitarian regime, which ties in to the mistreatment of commoners that you agree with above. And the “popular media” tends to suggest samurai as noble, tea-ceremony performing swordsmen, just as it portrays medieval European knights as knights in shining armor.
Lastly, there are many points on which we find ourselves in agreement. Japan was a safer place to live than most contemporary European countries, and the Tokugawa era did see 250 years of peace. The vast majority of samurai were nothing more than bureaucrats, and the “many samurai (who were) brutal and inhumane” (your quote) were doubtless a small percentage of the whole. If you’ll examine my original post, I think you’ll find my concern was less about the details of samurai history than with the idealized perception often found within the martial arts community. I’m not saying samurai were all terrible people. But there is a very dark side to their history that I hate to see so frequently ignored. They are held up as an ideal in terms of honor, skill, selflessness, etc. That’s not true, or at least it’s not the whole truth.
And when speaking in generalizations – e.i. about the samurai as a group – the truth become pretty important.
By the way, if you’re double-checking my dates, you may find discrepancies. I’m posting this from work and have had to rely on memory. I hope you will not impugn my memory to the same degree you have impugned my historical analysis.

Cheers,
Josh Gepner

Don Cunningham
18th April 2002, 21:35
...the fact that five British merchants were killed on the Tokkaido in 1862 for not bowing deeply enough as a samurai retinue passed, etc....
I didn't mean to imply that you have no idea of what you're talking about, just that you tend to hyperbole. For example, your reference above is another example of overstatement and misinformation. The incident you refer to occurred on Sept. 14, 1862, when Charles Lenox Richardson, a British merchant, was viciously slaughtered after his horse interferred with a passing retinue of Satsuma samurai. Richardson was part of a party of four foreigners out for some sightseeing on the Tokaido when the unfortunate incident occurred. It should be noted, however, that the group had disregarded an advisory issued by the Japanese authorities warning foreigners to avoid the roads that day due to the planned processions.

Not only is the number of victims exaggerated from one to five in your account, but it conveniently overlooks how many innocent Japanese were killed by the punishment shelling inflicted on them from eight British warships in retaliation for Richardson's murder. While accounts are different, the murder of Richardson had nothing to do with "not bowing low enough," but was sparked by his horse running into the procession. A woman companion's horse may have become spooked and charged in first, but Richardson was not killed for demonstrating an improper bow as you suggest.

As for the Christians who were persecuted, I would also point to equally brutal massacres in the name of Christianity. You also indicate that children were included, but I saw no evidence of this when reading accounts of the brutalities while visiting the sites at Nagasaki. Men and women were killed for sure, but where do you find any evidence of children being slaughtered?

Yes, the Japanese are racists. I've seen it. It has nothing to do with whether they are samurai class or commoner, though, since their racism knows no such class barriers. There are racists here, too. I grew up in Texas. Have you seen pictures of lynchings which continued well into the last century here in the south? If so, you might not be so ready to accuse others of being more brutal.

Don't even get me started about the brutalities of war. As a Vietnam veteran, I could tell you about "trophies" that make collecting heads seem like child's play in comparison.

I don't mean to imply that the samurai were better than any others, but they certainly weren't any worse. Under the Tokugawa shogunate, the average Japanese citizen enjoyed far more human rights than their European counterparts. It was only after the Japanese adopted the French judicial system during the Meiji Restoration that the adversarial system was dropped and those accused were considered guilty until proving their innocence. While eliminating the samurai class system, the Japanese adopted many of our Western practices, both good and bad. I submit the Japanese commoners often suffered more after the modernization of their society than they did before.

Your arguments are full of inconsistencies and exaggeration. While some of your points may be valid, it has little to do with your reasoning. In fact, you provide little or no evidence to back up your hypothesis. You may be fluent in Japanese, but you certainly have a lot to learn about history, both Asian and Western. I suggest you read a bit more and then come back to discuss the subject.

Zoyashi
18th April 2002, 22:09
Don -
You're missing the point, despite your impressive (where I to adopt your degree of brusqueness, I might call it pedantic) grasp of particularities. I am not saying samurai were worse than their contemporaries in Europe, a point you insist on belaboring despite the fact I've already agreed with you. I neglected to mention the retaliatory shelling because it doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I am not in any way comparing and contrasting samurai with contemporary Europeans. What I AM talking about is the present (as in these days, right now) idealism of the samurai within the martial arts community. ?Train like a samurai,? ?Act as a samurai would,? ?Follow the hagakure,? ?be like the samurai zen master,? etc. Since you seem to require comparisons between occidental and oriental culture, I?ll freely admit that if someone told me I should be a ?knight in shining armor,? or to ?act like a brave Crusader,? I would have the same objections. The idealization of the warrior culture, east or west, is inherently tempting to budoka, for obvious reasons. But there is a temptation to put an unvarnished gloss on these things, and THAT is what I object to. Does the fact that eight British warships shelled innocent Japanese change the fact that some samurai were savage, brutal killers? It does not.
I have always found your posts to be intelligent and well-reasoned, and these last two are no exception. But as skillful as you are in remembering the names of chopped-up British merchants, you seem consistently blind to the central thrust of my argument, which has less to do with the specific incidents and their place in the overall scheme of history and more to do with modern perceptions. Maybe this is my historical bone to pick ? if someone mentions cowboys and Indians, I can?t help but think of the trail of tears. If you want to hold up specific samurai as exemplary figures, I have no problem with that. But the general attitude towards samurai is that they were all noble swordsmen who spent their non-training time performing the tea ceremony, and we?d all do well to emulate their behavior. I cannot accept that myth. Perhaps this is because the Japanese have the unfortunate tendency of changing or glossing over the less savory parts of their history, and it gets on my nerves. If we accept your suggestion that samurai were in the main petty bureaucrats who barely knew one end of the sword from the other, my point still stands.
Josh Gepner

ZenHG
18th April 2002, 22:11
I agree that the Samurai of old were combatants, and might have also been oppressors, but there were also comparable numbers of Samurai whom were honorable, humble, and loathed combat.

I find that some of their ideals were, indeed, good things. Who cares if a Samurai cut off a peasant's head because he didn't like their hat, that doesn't mean we have to.
Following old ideals does not mean one cannot change them for the better.

I believe in the basic underlying principle of the Samurai - mainly, if you're going to die, why live your life in fear of dying, and laying down your life for someone else, honoring ones word, being true, and following through with a decision within the first seven breaths.

I think it is the ideal that matters, history is just the training grounds upon which they were planted, and grew.

~David Chapman.
Sho Rei Shobu Kan Goju Ryu Karate Do.

Don Cunningham
18th April 2002, 22:22
While I see no reason to resort to personal attacks as you have, I must again point out that there were many samurai who are excellent role models and certainly deserve the ideals ascribed to them. Ryuma from the Tosa clan who helped unite and overthrow the shogunate comes to mind. He was a strong advocate of human rights and believed in talent rather than heriditary positions. He's been compared to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, two men he also admired and emulated.

To use such exaggeration and misinformation in order to condemn all samurai is irresponsible and shows a basic misunderstanding of historical aspects. To condemn all knights during the middle ages doesn't make it acceptable, either. You have only shown your ignorance of history and an inability to put such issues in context.

All societies have a tendency to gloss over the mistakes of their forefathers. This doesn't mean that it invalidates the good aspects, though.

Joel Simmons
18th April 2002, 23:45
Alohas all,

Mr. Gepner - I understand what you are trying to say about people that try to emulate some sort of fantastic Samurai ideal. However, I do not believe this to be a product of modern media. I believe it to be a construction of individual psyches trying to bring meaning to our rather plastic and empty world. If you saw the recent program on TLC or the Discovery channel, you would realize that your interpretation of how Samurai are viewed was recently presented by the "mass media."

Who cares if people have some sort of flawed image of Samurai? I'd rather have people thinking they were the noble, tea-ceremony-performing statesmen that you abhor, rather than having people trying to copy-cat some blood-thirsty, racist, ignoramus.

hyaku
19th April 2002, 01:29
Originally posted by Zoyashi

“Train like a samurai,” “Act as a samurai would,” “Follow the Hagakure,” “be like the samurai zen master,” etc.

Sorry but it all sound like some media hype to me. I did say in a thread the other day, "Why does the media have this unhealthy preoccupation with the samurai?" The Japanese riot squad were quoted as "Will use adapted samurai weapons in case of trouble". If there are problems at the world cup are we going to blame the samurai again?

I have a healthy respect for the Hagakure.

http://www.bunbun.ne.jp/~sword/Hagakure1.html

But I have read comments dismissing it as the ravings of an aged homosexual.

It does however strongly put forward the attitudes that should be adopted by a retainer in following the orders and teaching of his lord.

I do believe this the person you should be complaining about. The engine driver and not the oil rag. Who gave the orders to massacre these Christians. I did read it was the Emperors brother that gave the orders in Nanking. By far the worst thing that has happened in Nagasaki was the A-Bomb.

http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/hibakusha/index.html

Who gave the orders for that?

I all my years of sword practice I don't think I have ever once considered trying to emulate what was a very small percentage (eight percent?) of the old Japanese "fuedal" society.

The Hagakure quotes that we should occasionaly draw the sword to shave our eyebrows. I do it a little more often but am seeking to attain self improvement rather than chop off the neighbours head (She wears this atrocious pink flower pot hat).
Although I would willingly chop of ther appendage of the man I found peeing in my garden last month?



I was involved once in a situation where westerners tended to put their Japanese sensei on a pedestal expecting something special from him in attutude as a sword teacher. At that time another teacher said to me that he though that the people concerned should realize that he was just a "human being".

When you were in Japan didn't they teach you any of this in the Dojo?

Hyakutake Colin

Jody Holeton
19th April 2002, 01:31
Dear all,

I am an amateur Japanologist and a very bad writer so please bear with me.

I think some interesting points are being made here, matters of perspective etc.

Let me see if I am getting all of this write from this thread:

1. The media has blown up the "legends of the samurai"
2. It seems that most warrior cultures have their own perspectives on warfare (morales, intentions) BUT all follow WARLIKE ways which by definition makes them warlike/violent people (see USMC history as a great example, they have turned their training into an efficient machine).
3. The media and history has built up warrior cultures (the Souix warrior culture, the knight myths, the ninja etc.) where its hard to seperate fact from fiction and what an all impressive myth progression culture mankind has (I have read WAY too much Joseph Campbell).:D :D


Is that basically what we are all talking about?

What I ask of the group, which Jigoro Kano and how many thousand of other instructors have pushed, the rhetoric behind certain myths is too push the good things about those cultures and to push people into a better frame of mind and morality.

Other than Americans, who really likes to talk about the bad parts of their history?

For example: the hagakure was used for propaganda purposes BUT there are good parts to it too.

I do think that more accurate information should be presented BUT that info does not sell in the mainstream media!

Maybe we should have a journal section like EJMAS has? A little peer review and alternative perspectives would be great, if we can keep it professional with bibs and background support...

Jeff Hamacher
19th April 2002, 02:09
Josh,

in fairness to the main point of your argument, i agree that some students of martial arts these days romanticize the samurai. i feel that statements like, "we must live up to the samurai ideal in our training as well as our very lives!", are just silly because most of the information these people have about their valiant warrior heroes is the content of books like Hagakure swallowed whole. modern scholarship of the japanese warrior class suggests that not everything Tsunetomo had to say to his junior associate was in line with reality but rather his own rose-coloured view of what bushi once were.

on the other hand, you should admit that some of the more impassioned comments in your leading post distracted readers from what you apparently wanted to say. i think this is partly why other members such as Don (greetings to you, sir!) felt the urge to reply as they did. i'm glad that you raised the issue of "samurai romanticism", and as long as the supplementary comments don't cloud your main message, i think others will also agree.

Ron Beaubien
19th April 2002, 02:23
Hello All,

Don Cunningham wrote:

"Yes, the Japanese are racists. I've seen it. It has nothing to do with whether they are samurai class or commoner, though, since their racism knows no such class barriers. There are racists here, too. I grew up in Texas. Have you seen pictures of lynchings which continued well into the last century here in the south?"

I just thought that I might add that for anyone who is unfamiliar with this unfortunate and at times neglected part of American history, you can find a powerful photo essay on the subject of lynchings at the following link:

http://www.journale.com/withoutsanctuary/

Regards,

Ron Beaubien

Finny
19th April 2002, 04:09
I was just going to say that the citation of a few incidents of brutality, spread over the entirity of premodern Japanese history is not a fair reason to dismiss the samurai and the "samurai ideal" as those of brutalistic, maniacal killers who oppressed the whole country.

We all have to take into account that societies and classes cannot be broadly classified, period. The samurai would have been like many classes of warriors throughout history; some bad, but mostly good men.

But to say that the ideals and philosophies of the righteous should be dismissed because of a minority's sins would be to render obsolete practically the entirity of our planets religions, not to mention philosophical and political belief systems.

Having said that, the exaggerations and abuses of the bushido ideal that occured in the past and continue to occur in todays mass media are historically incorrect, and it is a shame that the rich culture that this ideal comes from is not represented more accurately.

But I think the question that matters is, what do we judge to be misuse of this concept; where do we draw the line?, not is this concept wrong. For example, many have drawn a comparison to the 'knights of Europe' tradition. But the fact is, this tradition was not highly relied on to send men to patriotic deaths in WW11 like bushido was. The point being that the misuse of the concept does not render the idea useless/untouchable.

definitely 2¢ worth there...

cheers...:toast:
Brendan Finn

PRehse
19th April 2002, 04:25
By the same token when should not apply some romantic ideal, especially one coloured by modern western conceptions, to a whole class.

In Tokugawa society there were many attempts to formulate ideal samurai behaviour - a goal not a fact. Lot's of complaints about samurai who didn't know the pointy end of a sword from their butt, and incidents where the behaviour was less than steller.


I see no problem aiming for the ideal, achieved by some, while ignoring the mass of mediocracy and the minority of rogues.

Finally society changed. Warring state's period was not Edo was not Meiji was not 20th century. Samurai, along with everyone else, operated within a society.

Jon S.
19th April 2002, 04:29
I don't have to be a Japanologist at all to tell you that some of the samurai ideals are worth emulating.


Though there may be some exceptions, I think most people are pretty well grounded in the twenty-first century. If someone were to decide to develop a genuine samurai persona, I imagine they'd be dead or in jail before the day was over - after they killed the first person they met for failing to give them due respect.

Nor do I think samurai were any more brutal than men today.

Finny
19th April 2002, 04:53
but pretty much everything I've read suggests that there are precious few incidents recorded of samurai exercising his right to cut down a commoner. Whilst technically allowed to, they very rarely did.

Comments?
Brendan Finn:smilejapa

fifthchamber
19th April 2002, 16:18
Hi all,
I generally hate the posts that appear and make statements like te first post on this thread...To say things like this shows a lack of 'totality' and 'overall comprehension' of the subject and also an assumption that because we train in Japanese Budo we all want to be Samurai.
The Samurai history of these arts is long and full of things that (Looked at in hindsight) are wrong, both wrong for the Japanese and wrong for those persecuted by them. But history in any country is full of reprehensible acts that were seen as needed at the time..History is like that. Full of mistakes, violence and discrimination. All that one can do is look objectively at what caused those acts and why they were allowed to happen.
One should not think that the Samurai were perfect, upright human beings...To do so is to ignore many of the more vital aspects of feudal life. Some were killers, rapists, adulterers, sadists, etc..but the majority should never be put into one lump like this. Some were, most weren't.
I do not idolize the Samurai idea...I can't. That era is way past and the ideas of that time have moved on and developed. To live your life by following this 'ideal' image is ludicrous. What I aim for as a martial artist is to live my life in the best way that I can...If this is helped by adopting some of the Samurai ideals then so be it.
As for Hagakure itself, doesn't Tsunetomo caution against living a life that follows the ways of the past? I think he states that to do so is folly...One must make the most of the current world and its ways...
This 'media image' of all of us 'Budoka' as 'wannabe Bushi' is as shortsighted as thinking all Samurai did was wander around looking for fights the whole time. I have recently read an excellent book on the subject by Eiko Ikegami "The taming of the Samurai" which points out that although the Samurai had the right to kill peasants in reality this rarely happened, and as far as Kenka went the 'Kenka Ryoseibai' order caused the fights between Samurai to become far rarer than ever during the Tokugawa period.
I am NO expert...But I am interested in both Japanese history and the history behind the Japanese Budo that I study...I take what is good and I can use from those learnings but do NOT wish to be a Samurai...You lump us all together under the medias idea of what a martial artist is and then criticise the 'supposed' views 'we' hold....I disagree with that view on MA. Thats all.
Abayo..:wave:

Don Cunningham
19th April 2002, 16:43
Someone has been going through and editing my posts. I see no reason any of my comments should have been edited out, but I also take offense that the meaning was changed without any comment regarding the unauthorized text deletions.

This is intolerable. If my comments are to be edited, then whoever is doing the editing should have the courage to at least state such. I can no longer post anything if it is going to be subjected to such arbitrary editing.

People have a right to know what I wrote or take my name off it!

John Lindsey
19th April 2002, 17:46
I did not edit any posts. I will ask the other moderators.

George Kohler
19th April 2002, 17:50
Originally posted by John Lindsey
I did not edit any posts. I will ask the other moderators.

It wasn't me.

BTW, if any further editing is done, it will now show who did it.

John

Don Cunningham
19th April 2002, 18:35
Thank you. Several comments were deleted from previous posts in this thread and one entire post made this morning was deleted. I don't mind being admonished if I step over the line, but to delete or edit comments without attribution is a bit much.

Maybe it's been hacked, since it doesn't look like anyone else's comments were edited or deleted.

Zoyashi
19th April 2002, 19:20
Some of my rapier wit was disposed of. Probably for the best, tranquility-wise.

Josh Gepner

dakotajudo
20th April 2002, 17:38
Originally posted by Zoyashi
Mr. Cunningham,
Please don’t be so rude as to suggest I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’ve studied Japanese history for years in an academic setting, I’ve lived in Japan, I speak Japanese. It’s not like I just read “Shogun” and decided to post.


If you studied in an academic setting you shouldn't be offended if I ask for some citations.

I like to look for some of your sources, especially where you cite specific numbers (i.e. 15-20,000 Christians crucified.) or incidents.

Thanks,

Sochin
20th April 2002, 21:58
Hmm,
Hoist by my own petard?

My apology to Don and all has disappeared, so I will re-do it and hope it sticks.

I edited out parts of Don's and Josh's posts...Don called me over not giving notice I had edited his posts and I thought about it and I agree. I was wrong. I apologise.

I did not do it in a 'fit' of temper but excuses are not always proper in an apology so if anyone is interested I'll accept private e-mail. No big deal.

But what is part of an apology is the assertation I won't repeat my mistake - no matter how I feel, I will from now on always give note if I do an admin. edit for ad hominem content. Always.

And, for the record, I edited out part of both parties posts for the same type of 'ad hominem' content. (And I will continue to do so.) There was no favoritism.

Don Cunningham
21st April 2002, 04:00
Ted,

Apology accepted here. I was quite angry that my posts were edited, especially without any comment. I also thought the deleted content was both valid and relevant to the topic, so I don't understand why it was offensive to you.

It sort of reminded me of the Victorians who painted underwear on nudes by classical artists or put petticoats on table and chair legs so they wouldn't be viewed as offensive. I wouldn't be so bold as to decide what is or isn't offensive to others.

I still think hyperbole and exaggeration is not a valid argument for any historical analysis and invalidates the conclusion. I don't necessarily disagree with some aspects of Josh's point, but just because an acorn falls on Chicken Little's head doesn't mean the sky is really falling. A bit of basic fact checking first would have made his point a whole lot more convincing.

Joseph Svinth
21st April 2002, 08:12
Peter --

Assuming your question was not rhetorical, estimates of the numbers of Christians executed during the Tokugawa shogunate range between 3,000 and 40,000. http://jin.jcic.or.jp/access/religion/christianity.html , http://www.uwosh.edu/home_pages/faculty_staff/earns/miyazaki.html

By way of comparison, there were perhaps 5,000 lynchings in the US between 1880 and 1930. This is a rate of about one per week. http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/ACLAText/USLynch.html , http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/usa-riot.htm , http://www.berea.edu/ENG/chesnutt/classroom/lynchingstat.html , etc.

dakotajudo
21st April 2002, 14:30
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Peter --

Assuming your question was not rhetorical, estimates of the numbers of Christians executed during the Tokugawa shogunate range between 3,000 and 40,000.

By way of comparison, there were perhaps 5,000 lynchings in the US between 1880 and 1930. This is a rate of about one per week.

That's the kind of information I'm looking for. Even though the numbers are vastly different, the two sources you cite relating to Christian executions in Japan agree that the deaths were the result of the actions of a single Shogunate, although they are not clear on whether the executions occurred shortly after proscription or were carried out over the 200+ year period of exclusionism.

In contrast, your citations on lynching suggest that lynchings were an endemic part of American culture.

These citations do provide context for the numbers given previously. From there I can make my own conclusions. Thanks.

It does make the argument Christians bothering you again? Crucify fifteen or twenty thousand of them, including children sound a bit specious.

Battousai
22nd April 2002, 05:08
I agree with Zoyashi,

I myself find that the more martial arts are popularized as a hobby the more people tend to romanticize it.

I believe that the simple point that Zoyashi was writing about is the concept that many martial artists tend to view the samurai as honorable paragons. They look at them through a lens that filters out all of the dishonorable aspects of the samurai caste and the culture at that time.

Now as many previous posts pointed out, the samurai have both good and bad in their history. I think what is understated among many martial artists is the reality of the world in which the samurai lived, of which I only have precursory knowledge of. But I know enough of the history of Japan to know that what the samurai considered fair and just is not what normal people today consider fair and just.

The statement that the samurai could cut off a peasent's head if they wanted too, but usually didn't, describes a radically different paradigm of justice then what is seen today. Trying to morally qualify the past in view of today's morality is not fair to the samurai, nor will it be fair to us in the future.

My point is not about the good or evil aspects of the samurai, rather that most martial artists tend to see them in a false light that does not entail all the truths of their era. In my experience this romanticized view of the samurai is predominant, it may not be so in everyone's experience, but I have seen it many times in my own.

PRehse
22nd April 2002, 06:01
What got my hackles up was not so much the shattering of romantic illusions but the total rejection. An atheist is just another fundamentalist.

Personally I find the 100 years leading up to the Tokagawa Shogunate absolutely fascinating - the good, the bad and the ugly.

My Greek wife laments ah to be Greek in the olde days - slaves to do the [insert menial household chore here". My response, after obtaining a suitable ma ai, is "you probably would have been a slave". A similar clash of romance and ideal. All us waana be samurais would probably be peasent scum.

Battousai
22nd April 2002, 08:40
Originally posted by PRehse
All us waana be samurais would probably be peasent scum.

LOL. Ya only taking a bath a couple of times a year and such, sleeping on straw, lack of toilet paper. These sort of things help us put mediveal romance in its place :p

Don Cunningham
22nd April 2002, 16:46
The statement that the samurai could cut off a peasent's head if they wanted too, but usually didn't, describes a radically different paradigm of justice then what is seen today. Trying to morally qualify the past in view of today's morality is not fair to the samurai, nor will it be fair to us in the future.
As I understand the situation, the samurai was not allowed to arbitrarily kill without reason as suggested here. It was more like the samurai, being a member of the society's elite class, would not be subjected to the same scrutiny as a commoner by the authorities. His explanation of the circumstances was likely to be taken with more credibility than a commoner's version, thus it was less likely to be convicted of such a crime.

Of course, this would never happen in our more enlightened society. A person, for example, a celebrity, maybe a former football star and movie actor, would not be able to get away with slashing his ex-wife and some innocent bystander, maybe a waiter dropping off forgotten eyeglasses, and never face justice for murdering them in cold blood.

Oh, wait a minute....

Soulend
22nd April 2002, 19:04
I was under the impression that in very early times a samurai was permitted to cut a peasant down in the street for no reason at all if he so desired. Later on, samurai which did such 'sword-testing' were required to report that they had hewn someone, but nothing happened to them as a consequence. I am posting from work, so I don't have any references with me about this, though. I also have read that this was a pretty rare occurence however. I believe Dave Lowry mentions this in one of his books..perhaps Autumn Lightning?

Richard Elias
23rd April 2002, 01:17
Just FYI,

The privilege of cutting down someone below your status was called "kirisute gomen" which if I understand it correctly means "to cut down and say 'sorry'". ( there is another variation I can’t remember now which meant "to cut and walk away" but it’s virtually the same thing) It was mostly to instill the proper respect and fear in the lower classes, and was a test of a samurai's character. One who indulged his own blood-lust was not looked highly upon, and probably would not be hired or gain high status because of such viciousness. Another aspect of it is that if someone of a lower class insulted them (which could take on many forms) or angered them severely enough that he cut the offender down he was not responsible to their families as they were below him, which I believe was not necessarily the case if they were equals.

Jeff Hamacher
23rd April 2002, 02:03
Originally posted by Richard Elias
The privilege of cutting down someone below your status was called "kirisute gomen" which if I understand it correctly means "to cut down and say 'sorry'".
in this case, the expression gomen means something more along the lines of "honourable permission". the expression "gomen kudasai" ("please grant me your honourable permission") is often used when entering a home, and somewhat less often when ending a telephone conversation. interpreted thus, the samurai had leave from the authorities to cut down commoners who offended them somehow.

i'm a little disappointed that a search for "kirisute" didn't turn up any more than two threads, this one included. i was sure i read a more detailed article on the subject here, but perhaps my memory fails me. i seem to recall that, at some point, the Tokugawa shogunate struck this provision from the law; does anyone have further info on this?

update: a quick check of the ol' Kojien informs me that this was an Edo period statute, so i guess it wasn't repealed. what's also interesting to note, however, is that according to this definition, samurai had permission not only to slice 'n' dice peasants, but also chonin (townspeople or tradesmen) and even kashi (samurai of lower rank).

Richard Elias
23rd April 2002, 18:16
"samurai had permission not only to slice 'n' dice peasants, but also chonin (townspeople or tradesmen) and even kashi (samurai of lower rank)."

Yes, as I understand it this applied to anyone lower than there own status. If they were of at least equal status a formal challenge had to be issued.

Thanks for clarification of the Japanese.:smilejapa

George Ledyard
24th April 2002, 17:40
Originally posted by Richard Elias
"samurai had permission not only to slice 'n' dice peasants, but also chonin (townspeople or tradesmen) and even kashi (samurai of lower rank)."

Yes, as I understand it this applied to anyone lower than there own status. If they were of at least equal status a formal challenge had to be issued.

Thanks for clarification of the Japanese.:smilejapa

The translation that I read years ago (source not remembered) stated the justification for a samurai killing a peasant as being "for acting other than as expected" which I guess would cover pretty much anything.

Don Cunningham
25th April 2002, 17:39
I was going to provide a lengthy reply, but why bother? Some people are just going to believe whatever romantic swashbuckling image they have already mentally formed about samurai during the Edo Period. Let's don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, okay?

Jody Holeton
26th April 2002, 01:59
Dear Don,

I would be MORE than interested in what you have to say. Your writings and input have been a great help in my research, my martial arts studies and my Japanese. If you do not wish to write your opinions here please feel free to e-mail me or post at the forum at www.budokanjudo.com.

Thank you for your time and I hope to continue to read what you have to offer.

Sincerely,
Jody Holeton

Jeff Hamacher
26th April 2002, 02:18
Originally posted by Don Cunningham
I was going to provide a lengthy reply, but why bother? (...)
to whose comments are you referring, Don? sorry, i'm just being a bit too lazy by not looking very far upthread, but i'd like to know what you're criticizing here. take care and i'll look forward to reading you later.

Karl Friday
30th April 2002, 16:56
Kirisute-gomen probably translates best as "the right to cut down with impunity." This privilege, accorded most of the bushi class under Tokugawa law, is worth taking note of for what it says about the position of the samurai relative to the other orders of Tokugawa society (in the eyes of the shogunate and the daimyo). That is, it makes it clear that officially the samurai were so far above the rest of the population that they ought to be allowed to kill with impunity.

On the other hand, let's not forget that it was really a symbolic right, not a practical one. As history teachers have been reminding everyone since the Shogun TV series first ran, there isn't one, single instance of a kirisute gomen incident in any historical record for the entire Tokugawa period (unless someone's discovered one very recently). Now that, of course, doesn't mean that it never happened at all, but it does suggest that it must have been a pretty rare occurrence. The absence of kirisute gomen incidents in the historical record stands in sharp contrast to accounts of murders committed by members of various classes--including samurai--that were punished.

The most dramatic examples of samurai attacks on "civilians" were the actions of the anti-shogunate terrorists of the 1850s and 60s (the shishi). There were a number of such attacks on foreigners during this period. But these were acts of political terrorism, pure and simple, not expressions of samurai class pride per se. In some cases the perpetrators were shielded and protected by sympathetic daimyo--particularly in Satsuma and Choshu--but the shogunate regarded them as criminals and pursued them accordingly, to the extent that it could.

If you think about it for a moment, it's fairly obvious that a privilege like kirisute gomen could not have been invoked very easily, as a matter of practical considerations. High-ranked warriors had little real interaction with chonin, much less with peasants, other than when doing business with them. Lower-ranked samurai and ronin spent more time around chonin (but rarely peasants, since most samurai lived in cities and towns during the Tokugawa period), but samurai were not only economically dependent on the chonin around them, they were also dramatically out-numbered by them. Thus, while the law may have allowed them the privilege of killing an impudent merchant without repercussions, realistically, it was an empty threat. A samurai who killed a merchant or tradesman, other than in self-defense, would have found himself forced to deal with a few dozen of the man's friends and relatives, who might not have been as impressed with the letter of the law as with their own notions of just and unjust behavior. Remember Rodney King? Or the Watts riots of the 60s?