Essay chunks Flashcards
To what extent were eta and hinin liberated after the ‘liberation edict’ of 1871? (2008) - PLAN
Intro 1. Occupation 2. Danzaemon 3. Living area 4. Riots Conclusion
To what extent were eta and hinin liberated after the ‘liberation edict’ of 1871? (2008) - INTRO
The Meiji Restoration in 1868 was largely brought about by foreign pressure as well as internal conflict. The Meiji bureaucrats sought to modernise to compete with the West, and one way in which they did this was by introducing the liberation edict in 1871. The aim of this edict was to abolish the feudal class system by declaring eta/hinin as commoners and giving them the same legal rights, incorporating them into Japanese society. There were several reasons for this: the outcaste system was feudal; a modern state would have in it humans that were equal, at least in legal status; the Meiji leaders could not unify the country with an official outcaste system; and it helped with compulsory conscription and education. Bureaucrats set about eliminating the class system through this edict, but the extent to which they were ‘liberated’ remains contentious.
To what extent were eta and hinin liberated after the ‘liberation edict’ of 1871? (2008) - OCCUPATION
During the Tokugawa era, eta (‘much pollution’) and hinin (‘non-human’) were socially discriminated against. Eta dealt with death in their occupations, as well as leather, and held jobs such as executioners, butchers, and leatherworkers. Both Shinto and Buddhism had tenets against killing, and so eta were shunned. Being an eta was hereditary, but being a hinin, on the other hand, was not. Hinin consisted of those such as ex-convicts, vagrants, and beggers. Most eta and hinin kept the same jobs after the liberation edict, however, they lost their economic monopoly, particularly eta and the leather trade. Although eta and hinin were legally liberated and could have the same occupation opportunities as commoners, they were still socially discriminated against - companies could check if people were from an eta/hinin background well up intil the 1970s. Therefore, in this sense, the liberation edict was uncuccessful, as in liberating the outcastes, the outcastes lost their monopoly and their living standards declined.
To what extent were eta and hinin liberated after the ‘liberation edict’ of 1871? (2008) - DANZAEMON
Danzemon is a good example of how the liberation edict did not work. During the Tokugawa era, despite their low status, some eta leaders became wealthy or influential due to the monopoly they had over ‘distasteful’ jobs. Danzaemon was the hereditary head of the eta in Edo, and had daimyo-like privileges despite his status, such as the right to wear certain types of clothes and carry a sword. He resided in a commercial area devoted to leather-workers and shoe-makers in a controlled complex in which many eta were concentrated, and his authority extended to eight Kanto provinces. Danzaemon eventually gained control of hinin, too, as the bakufu needed more manpower to help clean up corpses, become prison guards, etc. However, after the edict, he became a commoner and lost his wealth and privileges, yet was still discriminated against and lost his monopoly over the leather business. Therefore, although the liberation edict may have been successful for integrating ordinary eta/hinin into society, it had devastating effects on those higher up in eta/hinin society. These outcaste fell into financial ruin and were stripped of the privileges they had enjoyed in the Tokugawa era.
To what extent were eta and hinin liberated after the ‘liberation edict’ of 1871? (2008) - LIVING AREA
During the Tokugawa era, eta and hinin occupied the city outskirts and physical spaces between village communities, and traversed society by engaging with other merchants. The liberation edict branded them ‘new commoners’ in official records, easily distinguishing them as former outcastes. Additionally, they still lived in the same areas as before, making them recognisable still. The slow-changing social attitudes meant hostility from local residents, causing the ostracised ‘new commoners’ to experience a decline in living standards, and the outcaste communities quickly became slum areas. Therefore, after the edict, discrimination and living standards did not change. Although outcastes could legally marry outside their caste and live in other places, the reality was not the case as they still faced social discrimination. This may be seen even today, with the idea of ‘burakumin.’
To what extent were eta and hinin liberated after the ‘liberation edict’ of 1871? (2008) - RIOTS
The liberation edict caused opposition from commoners, who rioted to express their disgust at being grouped together with outcastes. This showed that social discrimination was not going away, and that the outastes were unable to integrate into society as they were still classed as either ‘kyuu-eta’ (former eta) or ‘shin-heimin’ (new commoners). There were ten civilian riots against the edict by 1873, showcasing how bad societal attitudes were. Thus, we could argue that the edict in fact inflamed discrimination against outcastes.
To what extent were eta and hinin liberated after the ‘liberation edict’ of 1871? (2008) - CONCLUSION
Ultimately, although the liberation edict legally liberated eta and hinin, it was essentially in name only as they continued to face discrimination. The edict removed the monopoly on undesirable jobs and did not reduce the discrimination that was inherent in societal opinion. Eta and hinin benefited little in practical terms and they were unable to intergrate into society, facing discrimination in marriage, work, education, and so on. Thus, the extent to which eta and hinin were liberated was very little due to still existing biases regarding the outcaste system.
To what extent does the role of the Emperor in Japan differ before and after the Meiji Restoration? (2014)
How justifiable is the view that the role of the emperor was essentially no different to previous emperors? (2017) - PLAN
Intro 1. Sengoku 2. Tokugawa 3. Bakumatsu 4. Meiji Conclusion
To what extent does the role of the Emperor in Japan differ before and after the Meiji Restoration? (2014)
How justifiable is the view that the role of the emperor was essentially no different to previous emperors? (2017) - INTRO
The Meiji Restoration was a pivotal point in Japan’s history. Before the restoration, Japan had an isolationist policy (sakoku), however, the bakufu decided to open up ports to the Western Powers with the opening of Japan by Commodore Perry in 1854 and the signing of the Harris Treaty by chief policy maker Ii Naosuke in 1858. This was against Emperor Komei’s wishes as he had refused to ratify this treaty, insisting that the bakufu get rid of foreigners. Thus, the notion of ‘sonno’ (revere the emperor) became linked with ‘joi’ (expel the barbarians). The bakufu’s prestige was down, and the emperor now possessed a political quality. The Satsuma-Choshu clique took advantage of this, stating that the bakufu did not follow orders from the emperor, who should be respected. Therefore, they enacted the 1868 Restoration, returning the political power of the Tokugawa shogunate to the Imperial Throne (oseifukko). The Japanese word for this event (ishin) suggests a return to the ‘golden’ era of Japan, however, to what extent did the then 16-year-old Emperor Mutsuhito actually wield social, economic, and political power?
To what extent does the role of the Emperor in Japan differ before and after the Meiji Restoration? (2014)
How justifiable is the view that the role of the emperor was essentially no different to previous emperors? (2017) - SENGOKU
During the Sengoku period, Japan was in a constant state of civil war. The Onin War had left the imperial capital in ruins, and the imperial house was impoverished. The emperor could not afford royal attire or properly perform sacred rites. However, the emperor had a degree of personal freedom and could leave the palace and interact with different classes. He had the opportunity to participate in politics and was an influential political figure, though not a political leader. Therefore, although Sengoku emperors possessed no military and monetary power and were not actual political figureheads, they could participate in politics and had freedom.
To what extent does the role of the Emperor in Japan differ before and after the Meiji Restoration? (2014)
How justifiable is the view that the role of the emperor was essentially no different to previous emperors? (2017) - TOKUGAWA
Tokugawa Ieyasu’s rise to power brought with it restrictions to the emperor and the court’s personal freedom, as well as a total suppression of the Kyoto court’s political influence. In 1615, laws regarding the imperial court were introduced, giving the shogun the power to veto appointments and resignations of imperial court nobles and bestow titles of nobility upon military aristocracy - previously the prerogative solely of the emperor. In addition, the shogun now had control over temples and shines that were previously under the control of the imperial family, and the emperor could not leave the palace for the majority of the Edo period. However, the Tokugawa shogunate put money into the court and was celebrated by loyalists for properly revering the throne. Despite the passivity of the emperor, he was still able to perform the ceremonial duties of the heavenly mandate. Therefore, the emperor in the Tokugawa era did not play any active role in politics, instead focusing heavily on sacred rites which helped legitimise the Tokugawa shogunate’s rule.
To what extent does the role of the Emperor in Japan differ before and after the Meiji Restoration? (2014)
How justifiable is the view that the role of the emperor was essentially no different to previous emperors? (2017) - BAKUMATSU
The Bakumatsu period was characterised by by both internal and external pressure. Within the country, there were famines, riots, and anti-shogunate sentiments, and from outside there was news of China’s humiliation in the Opium Wars, the growing threat of colonisation by the Western Powers, and the opening of Japan by Perry in 1858. Emperor Komei began to be involved in politics, sending a letter to Edo expressing his concern for ‘coastal defences’ as well as refusing to ratify the Harris Treaty in 1858. The treaty was signed regardless, without royal sanction, and the bakufu looked bad for ignoring Emperor Komei’s newly acquired political voice and power. There was also emerging discourse on the throne’s role in national politics: the kokugaku movement advocated the study of Japanese culture before Buddhism, stating the national unity meant that the imperial will could not be defied and emphasising the emperor’s heritage with Amaterasu. Similarly, the Mito School of thought promoted the idea that the emperor was the sole hereditary beneficiary of the mandate of heaven. The general view was that, for the good of Japan, everyone - including the shogunate - must follow the imperial will. There was a change in the theory of government, with a more centralised focus on the emperor, and the Sat-Cho clans used this line of thought to promote anti-bakufu sentiments. However, they also argued that the court’s increasing political power highlighted problems within the bakufu and national disunity. Thus, the loyalist thought for the Meiji Restoration was that the government should be structured around how the government’s duty was to respect and protect the emperor by actualising the moral values he symbolised. The emperor’s role, on the other hand, was simply to exist and therefore remain passive - thus, this proved to be no different to his role in the Tokugawa era.
To what extent does the role of the Emperor in Japan differ before and after the Meiji Restoration? (2014)
How justifiable is the view that the role of the emperor was essentially no different to previous emperors? (2017) - MEIJI
Meiji bureaucrats understood that in order to modernise, the imperial house would play an essential role for providing a cemented political system, and that although the shogun was gone, the hierarchy of power must still be respected. Thus, although the 1889 Constitution made the emperor the holder of executive, legislative, and military power, it was only nominal. As in the Tokugawa period, the emperor’s personal freedom was restricted and he was moved to Tokyo. The emperor was used to legitimise the oligarchy, as sovereignty was placed on the imperial line rather than the emperor as an individual, and so the emperor’s power was heavily delegated among various branches. This allowed the Ministry of State to interpret what the imperial was, and all decisions they made labelled as the ‘imperial will’. However, unlike the Tokugawa period, politics were ritualised and ritual was politicised with the Imperial Oath of 1868. The emperor was also made public, paraded around Kyoto, Osaka, and Tokyo, and was visible and active in leading ceremonies. He was promoted as a national symbol to industralise and modernise the country, e.g. visiting factories and opening bridges and railways. Therefore, the emperor and the court were ritualised, legitimising the imperial institution, but the government ultimately decided and executed the ‘imperial will’. The emperor’s ceremonial role was emphasised to the public to further legitimise the imperial line and unify the country, and he was presented as having an active role in economics and politics. However, he was kept strictly at ceremonial level and used to further cement the emperor as the nation’s sovereign amongst commoners.
To what extent does the role of the Emperor in Japan differ before and after the Meiji Restoration? (2014)
How justifiable is the view that the role of the emperor was essentially no different to previous emperors? (2017) - CONCLUSION
Ultimately, with regard to political or economic power, there was no significant change to the emperor - he did not play a role, just like the Tokugawa period. Similarly, who the emperor was allowed to counsel was kept very controlled. However, his public role changed tremendously and he was a key figure in mobilising national sentiment and industrialisation. The difference in the emperor’s role was thus whether he was a public or private figure, but he still kept to rituals and legitimacy.
Discuss and explain the historical significance of the Imperial Oath of 1868 as a political rule. (2010) - PLAN
Intro
- Background - three problems
- Was it significant?
- Conclusion
