What killed Samurai culture?

*getting shit on by westerners

Unnatural selection then.

>implying

Meiji era.

DELETE THIS

>No, the west would have been content for the Japs to continue being a Shogunate.

Well, it sure was a lot of intensive multinational effort spanning centuries, to deculturalize, and reform, an entire nation, for such "indifference".

>The Japanese just didn't want to continue getting shit on westerners as had already happened.

What is that even supposed to mean? The sentence is barely coherent.

>If you want to see what happens to Asian countries that don't westernize then just look at China's history even before the Japanese even set eyes on colonizing them.

Apparently you are retarded, and have no clue about what you're posting about.

The West was anything but indifferent towards whether Japan westernized or not. Westernization is not something toward non-western nations aspire, as your conceited petty mind makes you believe; westernization is a slow gradual active process on part of the West in order to absorb and assimilate a country.

Not only are you suggesting that westernization is something desirable, or good, in itself, but also that country should want to be westernized in order to not perish by the consequences of westernization.

The problem is westernization, not the lack of it; to think otherwise would be like thinking that all persons in the world should be infected with HIV so that nobody else can be infected with it.

The Allied Occupation of Japan killed samurai culture. Honestly, is there anything less "samurai" than article 9 of their constitution?

Don't you mean modernize?

Your mom's fat ass.

Modernity itself is not necessarily antithetical to Martial culture, including samurai culture.

>ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
>(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Jesus Christ, I never realized how auto-castrated modern Japan is.

Modern military structure and technology was however

>auto-castrated

It was obviously the product of coercion by a multinational entity over a defeated and humiliated nation, you stupid fuck.

Funny, I don't see General MacArthur's signature at the bottom of said document.

It's rather depressing to think about.

It's not surprising that reactionary figures like Yukio Mishima became prominent in 1960 - 70's Japan as a result.

Martiality is not contingent to technological devices; the martial spirit is lived, not acquired; it is a lifestyle; the sword doesn't make the warrior.

>Your mom's fat ass.

why do I always laugh at these posts?

am I a stunted adolescent?
is it the wildly inappropriateness of the reply?
is it because I know it might very well be true an I'm a little bit afraid?

*sigh*

You're retarded.

Amazing argument.

>Well, it sure was a lot of intensive multinational effort spanning centuries, to deculturalize, and reform, an entire nation, for such "indifference".
Proof?
>What is that even supposed to mean?
It means the Japanese did not want a repeat of Matthew Perry's gunboat diplomacy. Westernization would allow them to resist efforts by western nations to control them by being able to compete on their level.

>The West was anything but indifferent towards whether Japan westernized or not. Westernization is not something toward non-western nations aspire, as your conceited petty mind makes you believe; westernization is a slow gradual active process on part of the West in order to absorb and assimilate a country.
Based on their entire latter half of your post I can see that you are a massive weeaboo.

I'm not suggesting that westernization is necessary in order to avoid the consequences of westernization, god no. I'm saying that westernization is necessary so that imperialist powers don't control your country by force of arms. Take for instance the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
The Chinese were absolutely powerless to resist westernized armies and as such were simply forced to concede to their demands.

The Japanese post-Meiji restoration on the other hand were a very formidable world power that managed to absolutely crush the Russian Empire's attempts to impose upon them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

If you're suggesting that the country perishes because of the loss of some of the more unique oddities of their culture as a consequence of westernization then that's retarded, westernization allows a country to preserve their native rule of law and dictate their own future - it is inalienably a good thing.

Crying about a lack of Samurai is meaningless, all the fancy Asian swords and muh bushido in the world aren't going to save the Japanese from from a big iron navy.

Go back to /v/ or wherever you come from, idiot.

You're historically ignorant, and mentally impaired, beside, your logic is perverse, and you clearly fail at comprehending what you read.

>westernization allows a country to preserve their native rule of law and dictate their own future
This is not always the case. Westernization and modernization also destroyed certain native sub-national cultures (including in Europe itself), as it tends to promote political centralization and cultural uniformization at the national level. I agree modernization in the European model an overall positive and likely inevitable process but that is not to say it's without its faults.

>Point out that the Japanese were in fact the chief architects of their own westernization and it was a decidedly good thing.
>baka go back to /v/

High quality of discourse here.

>*sigh*

want to know how i know you're from reddit?

This movie...

...

I've yet to see a single reference to the Reverse Course ITT. Not sure why, because it's perhaps the most important period of the Allied Occupation of Japan.

Influenced by the Chinese Communist Revolution, the escalation of the Cold War, and the immanent Korean War, the United States of America sought to secure Japan against Communism.

I can't be bothered to write anymore, as I've got actual work to attend to. However, for those who are interested, research the "Reverse Course" and its impact of Japanese politics.

Basically, by endorsing conservative politicians, America contributed to the formation of the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party. With exception to a period of 11 months between 1993 - 1994, the LDP has maintained control of Japan since its formation.

In what way was it the determining factor in ending traditional elements in Japanese culture?

That has nothing to do with the death "samurai culture," though. It was killed off long before and replaced by state-sanctioned """bushido""".

Literally not an argument

Meiji?

Not sure how you can be this stupid, but I'll try and explain it to you in simple terms:

Because typically American policies were imposed upon Japan during the period. This would eventually become a self-perpetuating system, as the formation of the LDP (established on American principles) would ensure Japan's democratic future.

It's a sad fact that the Ezo fleet lead by the Kanrin Maru was destroyed in a freak storm or they could've fended off Meiji and there would've been a French-backed Samurai Republic in the North.

The idea that a country's constitution can come into being and last in a stable manner for almost 70 years (in a democratic republic, mind you), solely through external dictate on the part of an amicable ally, is laughable.

You seem to have a child's understanding of politics. Do you play video games by any chance?

Meiji.

Guns.

not OP here
Japan made the choice of westernisation. They sent thousands of students overseas to study everything about the west (science, but most importantly politic, moral and economy). Their WWII actions are extremely related to this. They wanted an empire like those Western Empires.

And I have a source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_O._Reischauer

To my understanding, and I've read quite a bit about it, the first Samurai weren't so much about swords (altho it was a big thing) but more archery, which was considered a divine art form. With the advent of trade with the Portugese came guns, and anyone and their greasy grandmother could drop a samurai in .2 second. Altho the strict behavioral (honor) system didn't die (still is observed today), that would be the "beginning of the end" of prevalent samurai culture, but it would be a long, slow process.

Couldn't it be maintained in other institutions though? Military, politics, business, even friggin' boy scouts?

didn't japan have guns at least 200 years before though?

The only laughable aspect of this thread is incredibly flawed method.

You obviously don't understand how a debate works, as your paragraph only attempts to destabilise my position instead of strengthening your own.

In essence, the only thing you've asserted is that my argument is weak. However, you've yet to establish your position, which is indicative of two things:

I) You haven't actually formulated an opinion, so you attack someone else's knowing that your non-existent position can't be criticised in retaliation.

II) You actually believe that your statement:

>The idea that a country's constitution can come into being and last in a stable manner for almost 70 years (in a democratic republic, mind you), solely through external dictate on the part of an amicable ally, is laughable.

Is entirely faultless, and therefore functions as a refutation, argument and conclusion simultaneously.

Now that I've demonstrated your flawed methods, could you perhaps explain how Japan's constitution has remained unaltered, if not due to American influence?

Now, I recognise and appreciate that this might be difficult for you, as your language and methodology indicates that you've no academic experience. However, I would ask that you try your best -- not for the sake of quality discussion, but to provide Veeky Forums with more comedically flawed content.

If you didn't seperate every line you wouldn't look like such a massive retard.

Bushido was a big thing even in WW2. You didn't see guys walking around in armor or feudal warlords, thought. Guns made everyone who had one "even" and there was no more room for a special class of warrior who brought knives to gunfights.

I mean, sure, samurai used guns too, because they had to, but they weren't any longer so much part of that spiritual idealism that came with finely honed skills and perfected physicality.

>Now that I've demonstrated your flawed methods, could you perhaps explain how Japan's constitution has remained unaltered, if not due to American influence?
How about: because of the deep social, political and cultural transformation inaugurated since 1945 which thoroughly transformed Japanese national identity and self-understanding.

By the way, the way a debate work is that prima presents an argument and secunda tries to knock it down. Presenting an alternative explanation isn't required for the sake of falsification.

It seems you have a child's understanding of debate.

When communicating through a forum, seperating ideas into paragraphs allows the responder to address each point individually.

No his post was retarded regardless of formatting.

i can't believe there are unironic weeaboos here who think westernization was bad for japan... wow...

Not him, m8. Just saw your stupid post.

Actual samurai, as any manner of medieval era knight, were long gone by 1945.

I hope you realize that rhetoric is a huge point of debate and presenting your point persuasively is just as, if not more, important than being factually correct.

Setting yourself up for
>
Bullet point arguments is autistic as fuck and there's a reason no one outside of this site really argues like that.

this
There's no point in spending the resources necessary to keep a aristocratic warrior caste going, when you can mass produce vastly larger armies, superior through sheer numbers, cheaper.

Similar to what happened with the knights of Europe.

>The idea that a country's constitution can come into being ... is laughable.

You do realise that the Allies engineered the Japanese constitution, right? In addition to this, do you know what the Potsdam Declaration is, or how it outlined the Allies' intentions?

>"The Japanese government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."

Japanese politicians and civilians alike maintained a general contempt for the constitution that was imposed upon them. In fact, it was frequently described as being like an "ill-fitting suit of clothes."

>I hope you realize that rhetoric is a huge point of debate and presenting your point persuasively is just as, if not more, important than being factually correct.

There's the problem. Factuality must maintain priority over rhetoric, especially in historical debate.

In an legitimate academic context, the rule is "content before the presentation."

I want to add to this an afterthought, in comparison. You know, the advent of the arquebus didn't just, over night, wipe out European knights. There were guys on horseback wearing chest plates and helmets carrying guys for centuries. Hell, I'd rather had something like that on my torso, in the event someone was lucky enough to actually hit straight with a non-rifled firearm, just for the chance it would glance/deflect.

Actual samurai, the real samurai from the feudal era of Japan, were very much the same, in comparison. They just had a very strict honor code (in most cases, not all, some were overgrown richboy bullies) that made them a sort of romanticized hierarchy among their international peers, and rightly so.

lol carrying guys. Carrying "guns". Fucking typo.

>You do realise that the Allies engineered the Japanese constitution, right? In addition to this, do you know what the Potsdam Declaration is, or how it outlined the Allies' intentions?
Even the most authoritarian and brutal occupation regime (which the US certainly wasn't) needs local legitimacy and cooperation. Even Hitler had Petain, even the USSR had Honeker. Legitimacy is a thing. You can't just waltz into a country, draft a constitution and get them to ratify it in all legislative instances, not even if you have nukes and big American penis.

>Japanese politicians and civilians alike maintained a general contempt for the constitution that was imposed upon them. In fact, it was frequently described as being like an "ill-fitting suit of clothes."
And yet it survives pretty much unchanged, Art. IX and everything, despite the huge political challenges in the postwar era.

The white man

>Even the most authoritarian and brutal occupation regime (which the US certainly wasn't) needs local legitimacy and cooperation. Even Hitler had Petain, even the USSR had Honeker. Legitimacy is a thing. You can't just waltz into a country, draft a constitution and get them to ratify it in all legislative instances, not even if you have nukes and big American penis.

But that's the thing, at no point was the Allied Occupation of Japan "a authoritarian" -- despite the forced amending of their constitution.

Discipline, moral legitimacy, well-defined and well-articulated objectives, a clear chain of command, tolerance and flexibility in policy formulation and implementation, confidence in the ability of the state to act constructively, the ability to operate abroad free of partisan politics back home, and the existence of a stable, resilient, sophisticated civil society on the receiving end of occupation policies– these political and civic virtues helped make it possible to move decisively during the brief window of a few years when defeated Japan itself was in flux and most receptive to radical change.

>think before posting
On the biggest, international, most famous anonymous shit post website.
Bitch are you retarded?

Was meant for

>mfw the Last Samurai was a French artillery officer.
>mfw this movie litterally has the line "Japan choose the best in the world for each field: German for military equipment, and of course, for military instructors, us Americans"

#

>And yet it survives pretty much unchanged, Art. IX and everything, despite the huge political challenges in the postwar era.

>ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
>(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Except that Japan now maintains a military capable of effective retaliation, which means that article 9 of their amended constitution has changed.

To be fair, the movie is only very loosely based on the actual guy. It's not supposed to be a realist drama by any means.

Samurai culture is a sham perpetrated by butthurt post-Sengoku era samurai who couldn't actually fight in wars so they made up a bunch of shit about fighting wars and things they had no actual experience in. Then come WWII, they brainwash all the retards in thinking that bushido means to be brutal to POWs and to kill yourself instead of retreating.

Japan killed samurai culture, not the West.

As far as I know the interpretation of the statute as pertaining to offensive army (or rather a military force of a certain size) was pretty much well accepted around the time of the ratification. I may be wrong here since my knowledge is anecdotal so I'm open to be shown otherwise. Anyway if that's the case it means that there hasn't been a significant change in status quo.

It's a common American tendency in movies to replace non-Americans with Americans for practically no reason except to make it more appealing to other Americans.

tfw Canadians got shafted in Argo for the same reason.

There were no wars inside Japan. The clans had to fight achother. After they were defeated in WW2 Japan couldn't even invest into anything military but a national guard, which sterilized the samurai culture.

>Go back to /v/ or wherever you come from, idiot.

You're a poopy head!

>You're historically ignorant, and mentally impaired, beside, your logic is perverse, and you clearly fail at comprehending what you read.

And u rong!

It hits every checkbox for retard arguments

>Implying samurai culture died

Just remove the armor and weapons, and you have the exact same culture of obeying your lords which you serve.

Except that today here are no Shoguns, and the new lords are the mighty owners of big capital

The result is obedient loyal people who belong not to a warrior, but to a worker-consumer proletariat class.

youtube.com/watch?v=JVQAf6Fbd_s

There was once a documentary about a japanese guy who self-described as Maoist, and how he was very dissappointed in capitalism that basically killed his company in 2008, and how life a wageslave basically is hell in Japan. I can't seem to find it in youtube for some reason

the military class had no purpose in a westernized society.

Really? Don't you think West Point grads in the US form a military class? Or Four Star Generals at least? It's even hereditary to an extent, look at the McCain family. Classes are part and parcel of industrial society, it applies to the armed forced too (a job like any other).

fpbp

Have you read Mishima?

it's interesting to see photos of them from their final period

Finally!
An argument I can get behind!

Why are they such manlets?

Is height of such importance on the battlefield?

>implying that matters when they can skewer you with that fucking naginata

Japanese were manlets for a long time, average height of a soldier in WWII was 5'2.

What is a Samurai? it's a Soldier that is not needed, so he is a bureaucrat. Of course they might write some bullshit books about honor and such, but that's understandable. I mean, they're soldiers that aren't needed because there aren't any wars.

The time after the age of warring states killed the samurai

The Samurai had many privileges. Many rich merchants bought a Samurai title and never fought a battle in their lives.

Tom Cruise
he ruins most things though

Samurais

>manlets XD
Less nutritions

I think you're lost friend. Liberal masochists are thataway

Guns

Westernization.

I thought it was the accepted view that Japan westernized and brought it upon themselves so that they could defend from the west later on once they had caught up with the technology etc etc. It's also why it went so fast in less than 20 years or so.

>Westernization
Question is if that even matters here though.
As other itt have already pointed out, there were already no wars to fight. Could it not have been so that if Japan had been able to continue its isolation, the samurai and their culture would still continue to be become less and less relevant.

No, it was the Japanese westernizing.

Peace.
The culture was dead by the end of the shogunate. They were all only good at managing money.

The culture was really dead from the start of the shogunate.