DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Rx-Ultram** · 06-11-2006, 08:00 AM

I get the strange feeling that you two are referring to the same phenemenon that nobody truly understands. Japan as any other country is not uniform, as has been pointed out many times

Exactly - in Japan, the idea of Japan and its people as an entity did not really exist before the Nation State. Before that the ordinary people had little or no idea who the emperor was. It's true that Japan has many invented traditions, such as the kimono for example, but I suppose you could speculate this has all been brought about along the Nation State. Invented traditions and concepts were introduced in order to unify a very heterogenous people. This still doesn't mean that Japan is completely without any 'serious' tradition.

Therefore maybe the statement by Tonysoong about the Japanese seeing the other asian countries as inferior should be altered to include other nations and there views about other cultures?

Exactly. I very much doubt that many Americans or Europeans consider Thailand, for example, to have an equal status with their country.

But, perhaps as Iron Chef has noticed, there is a serious problem behind the Japanese copying --- They have imitated so much both from classic China and the modern west (too much) without digesting it.

You might want to revise what you wrote. I don't think that you can claim that for example the kanji still exist in a mere copied state in the Japanese writing system. Chinese characters work perfectly with Chinese - they work less perfectly with Japanese as it is an agglutinating language. They first tried to make it fit, found out it doesn't work quite right and changed the system to suit Japanese better. It is still quite evident that kanji derives from hanzi but even a Chinese speaker would have to study kanji before being able to use them. This, I think, Would not be the case if the kanji were only a copy of something. A copy means something identical, doesn't it?

Besides, classical Chinese culture itself has borrowed elements in it. For example in stage arts, the Jin dynasty zaju was brought about by the Jurcen people from Manchuria - they were not Han Chinese. And still, the Jin dynasty was a great era for stage arts in China. As for other examples, I think you would be quite capable of distinguishing Japanese ukiyo-e from Chinese art. As for having similar style, isn't it the same to claim that all impressionists copied one person only because they have a similar style? Why do we distinguish different impressionists from one another if they all 'copy' something? Because they are able to differentiate themselves even while executing a similar style.

06-11-2006, 08:00 AM	#33
Rx-Ultram Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 438 Senior Member	I get the strange feeling that you two are referring to the same phenemenon that nobody truly understands. Japan as any other country is not uniform, as has been pointed out many times Exactly - in Japan, the idea of Japan and its people as an entity did not really exist before the Nation State. Before that the ordinary people had little or no idea who the emperor was. It's true that Japan has many invented traditions, such as the kimono for example, but I suppose you could speculate this has all been brought about along the Nation State. Invented traditions and concepts were introduced in order to unify a very heterogenous people. This still doesn't mean that Japan is completely without any 'serious' tradition. Therefore maybe the statement by Tonysoong about the Japanese seeing the other asian countries as inferior should be altered to include other nations and there views about other cultures? Exactly. I very much doubt that many Americans or Europeans consider Thailand, for example, to have an equal status with their country. But, perhaps as Iron Chef has noticed, there is a serious problem behind the Japanese copying --- They have imitated so much both from classic China and the modern west (too much) without digesting it. You might want to revise what you wrote. I don't think that you can claim that for example the kanji still exist in a mere copied state in the Japanese writing system. Chinese characters work perfectly with Chinese - they work less perfectly with Japanese as it is an agglutinating language. They first tried to make it fit, found out it doesn't work quite right and changed the system to suit Japanese better. It is still quite evident that kanji derives from hanzi but even a Chinese speaker would have to study kanji before being able to use them. This, I think, Would not be the case if the kanji were only a copy of something. A copy means something identical, doesn't it? Besides, classical Chinese culture itself has borrowed elements in it. For example in stage arts, the Jin dynasty zaju was brought about by the Jurcen people from Manchuria - they were not Han Chinese. And still, the Jin dynasty was a great era for stage arts in China. As for other examples, I think you would be quite capable of distinguishing Japanese ukiyo-e from Chinese art. As for having similar style, isn't it the same to claim that all impressionists copied one person only because they have a similar style? Why do we distinguish different impressionists from one another if they all 'copy' something? Because they are able to differentiate themselves even while executing a similar style.
	Quote