18 replies to this topic

[Comadrin]

I started this topic because I really like this manga and enjoy commenting on it, but hate to give the plot away in the general discussion on the main page. I really enjoyed the latest chapter, about the Kabuki festival, because I really enjoy what I have seen of Kabuki (mostly from movies, and a couple of plays on campus when I was at college). The manga also had a light touch about nanshoku among the onnagata (fairly common during the Edo era), making it just a facet of the story instead of turning it into yaoi. (I am not being blue-nosed about yaoi, it is just not my dish of tea.) I'm also learning a great deal about customs and jurisdictions during the Edo era from this story (I had no idea that civil authorities had no jurisdiction over temples and clergy), as it is pure historical and not sci-fi or fantasy (no babes in bikinis around the battle of Sekigahara, or anything like that). The characters are also realistic and interesting, and not late 20th century personalities displaced back 200 years. As a Hiroshige/Hokusai fan, I really enjoy the art, also, which adds to the realism of the period, rather than having cliché shoujo manga looking characters.

[Comadrin]

I thought that chapter 24 was pretty good, the plot being intricate enough that one could make a longer series about it. I've noticed that revenge plays a large role in this series, which makes sense considering that Chusingura was probably the most popular play during the entire Edo period. It's also good that women can play better roles than just the innocent victim or the wanton victim.

[Comadrin]

Chapter 25 was also a good one. I have to say that this author can handle psychological drama as well or better than any mangaka I have come across yet.

[Purple Library Guy]

So ch 26 was a relatively lighthearted chapter, but if you look it it we have a theft . . . of blackmail money . . . by the guy's wife . . . which she stashed with her lover. How many layers of sordid are enough, huh? And these are the comparatively harmless people!
I must admit I didn't have it figured at all . . . I was suspecting the landlord. He seemed to be the one insider nobody was thinking about in their calculations, and from a different class that would have been more likely to be up and about at the time of the theft.

[Comadrin]

Yeah, this chapter didn't have any revenge/rape/murder/mutilation kind of thing, just trailer park romance in the Edo Era.

[Comadrin]

Well, the latest chapter, number 27, exposes some of the things that the Tokagawa shogunate would have rather kept hidden. (Such things couldn't happen in our rigidly controlled, confucian philosophy driven shogunate.) Just like any authoritarian setup, whether national socialist or stalinist driven, corruption is there, as such "controlled" societies bring the psychopathic/sociopathic element to be part of the ruling class. Just read "The Zoo Keeper's Wife" or any number of books about what really went on in the former USSR to understand why rigid authoritarian/caste system societies breed such scumbags.

More than 60 years ago, Ghandi repudiated the caste system in India. It is still alive and doing its' thing today. People will refuse to give up their "superiority" (just look at parts of the US south) until something like the French Revolution happens. I am not an advocate of the more violent forms of Jacobinism, but a certain amount of "ass-whuppin'" has to happen, or people will not give up their "privileges" to hold the power of life and death over their "inferiors."

As an American fan of most things Japanese, I am not a fan of the Tokugawa Shogunate. It was quite similar (and happened at about the same time) as the Tudor monarchy in England. Both came at the end of the medieval period for their respective countries, and both gave rise to such lovely things as secret police, and a number of other authoritarian measures that severely restricted individual freedom. The difference between those two and the Nazi and Stalinist measures was a matter of technology and communication ability. If the Tudor regime had the ability to control that 20th century Germany and the USSR did, the results would have been no different. In a closed society (closed by the shogunate), Japan was effectively controlled in a totalitarian manner by the shogunate. Women's rights were proscribed, as were any means of protesting against the status quo. It was a totalitarian state, pure and simple.

[Purple Library Guy]

Oh, for sure. If you look at some of the Tudor (upper class) writers, their private writings indicate them to be a very paranoid bunch, never sure if they could trust someone who seemed to be a friend, and quite unhappy about the fact. The Tudors also were the first in England to come up with censorship (well, OK, other than the Church who'd been into that for a while). Although it could be argued that censorship by monarchs just came pretty naturally as a response to the printing press . . . Heck, early copyright measures seem to have been associated more with reinforcing the ability to censor than with the kind of objectives we normally associate with it.

[jfforums]

One of my favorites mangas too, nice stories, universal in meaning that almost any of them can be seen in any other time/place in world, and nice flavored with japanese traditions.

This chapter - 34. left me with some troubles, could be problem with translation, or mangakas mistake. When older son was interviewed, he said victim come when he was 14 years old and now he is twenty, so younger son can have around 5 years, lets say 6 years max (if victim joined family as a pregnant), because he was born in that family. Cant see any 6 years old (even healthy one) plan something like this or swing sword and give anything more then scratches, so i think there must be some confusion with time periods in this story. All other is as usual, its a nice story from life with multiple layers.

 

Btw, Comadrin, every society in history had corruption, whether it was much or less visible, its only how much are we willing to admit that about that society. As time passes, and society advances, corruption gets only bigger, no matter of place where we live. So generalizations like *authoritarian setups* do not add much when you talk about corruption - "controlled societies" is much closer, but that applies to any society in world now.

As one great writer, Frank Herbert, said (i am paraphrasing it, but i am trying to save the meaning) "In all human history, only one tipe of ruling the society exists, and thats helping to those who bring you benefit (as a ruler), and destroying those who opose to you".

Corruption is just a result of that kind of behavior.

This post is a little out of topic, but this theme you started here.

 

If my post is problematic for understanding, or if there are too much gramatic errors and bad idioms, blame my bad english

[Comadrin]

jfforums,

 

I don't deny that every society from Harappa and Mohenjo Daro to present day Beijing, Tokyo, Moscow, or Washington had or has corruption.  I have just noticed, while reading history, that certain types of governments seem to breed certain types of parasites.  The change from feudalism to a national government in both Japan and England gave rise to the secret police, neighbors "narking" out (for definition, look up "Captain's Narker", in British Naval History) fellow neighbors, destruction of a "yeoman class" (small farmers who owned their land), and extensive reduction of the rights of women.  This happened in both countries in the same general time frame.

 

In England the destruction of the "third estate" (the church) was held up to the populace as freedom from tyranny, but the church (as a landlord) was always far more lenient than noble/secular/profit-loving landlords.  Also, the yeoman/peasant no longer had the third estate to appeal to legally:  they now had to appeal to the very people who were taking their land.  

 

I am saying that there is something ethically wrong and morally repellant in a society that proscribes women from taking part in kabuki (invented, by the way, by a women) when women in Japan had acted in "peasant" dramas from time immemorial.  In Tudor/Elizabethan England (where the same "peasant dramas" were normal during the medieval period) women were also proscribed from acting in public playhouses, although in England then, as in Japan, they sure weren't proscribed from working in brothels.

 

My point is that a national government, controlling every aspect of life and condemning as treason anything that deviates from their definition of responsible citizenship is a model that definitely draws sociopathic types into the government to be the Gestapo/NKVD/KGB of their era.  The bureaucrats of such an era are the gowleiters/commissars of the government.  

Edited by Comadrin, 15 April 2013 - 07:21 AM.

[jfforums]

Well, this will be my last post in this topic on corruption theme I will rather try to comunicate directly with you, Comadrin, or if there are others interested on this theme, making new topic on some other place in forum.

First the things that i am finding quite acceptable from your post from 15th april:
1. "I have just noticed, while reading history, that certain types of governments seem to breed certain types of parasites."
2. "My point is that a national government, controlling every aspect of life and condemning as treason anything that deviates from their definition of responsible citizenship is a model that definitely draws sociopathic types into the government".

What i find quite problematic are your arguments: you are talking mainly about womens rights. I would like to remind you that until the end of 19th century there was not a single "modern" society on this planet where womens rights were being equal or at least very close with man's rights. But in every society in those days were present different forms of womans degradation. There can be hardly found single women in arts, politics or religion in, lets say 1000 years before that if we exclude aristocracy ( and Joana D'Arc ). With this i am reffering mainly to European and a little of North American history - unfortunately, i did not learn much about history of other parts of world. With that in mind, i think that in Japan womens were in very similar situation as in Europe or North America during that period.
Changes in political system (slavery->feudalism->capitalism or socialism) were always connected with taking some ( or plenty of ) rights from one group of people ( allways bigger group ) and extending the rights of smaller group of people, which always produce reduction of what we today call human rights in such society, and that was the same in every part of world, then and now, not only in Japan and England.

I do not know much about Tokugava shogunate, except a little from mangas, but if we are talking about corruption and forceful exercise of authorities, i think better example would be shogunates (i do not know if Tokugawa was responsible for that) cracking of process of christianization of Japan citizens, where can be found numerous cases of cutting limbs, cooking people alive or simply killing them because they changed religion to christianity. I read once book on this theme from Japanese author, unfortunately i forgot his name, but i think the name of book was "Prayer" (at least that way was translated in my country). Though i do remember that after reading the book (and even today), i found quite amusing/ironic fact that author declared himself as a Japanese catholic.
On the other hand, if we talk about England, better example would be period of Irish Great Famine (think 1845-1852). During the time when milions of Irish people were dying from hunger, widely spread public opinion in England (which ruled over them) was that they deserve that. In both English parlament houses politicians were competing between themselves in calling Irishmans "subhumans", "monkeys","lower human species" etc. That was so much wide public opinion, that even 60-70 years later similar arguments about racial supremacy can be found in early esseys written by Winston Churchill (yep, the guy who was leading England during WWII).

In both examples can be easier found or recognized that sociopathic/psychopatic elements in the government you are talking about.
But again, there is no "modern" society without a huge pile of skeletons in the closet, so its not only Japan or England.

Main point of my disagreement with your post is your linking of that kind of behavior (after talking about womens and peasants rights in 16th century) with mere a simple state executors of government policy as Gestapo/NKVD/KGB in more recent era. From those 3, NKVD and KGB were in society without what we call today "democracy", government appointed services to keep government in power by brute force. Gestapo is much more interesting case, because it was Nazzi party service, not state service. That party come in ruling position after democratic elections 1934. with landslide victory (maybe i am wrong about year), and Nazzi party was never hiding their intentions, nor before nor after elections. Party had several milions of members at the end (1945), Gestapo had tens of thousands members at the same time. But in the process of denazzification (Nurnberg and other trials in that time), only around 5000 Germans are sentenced. It is known fact that many of burgemeisters (mayors) in small Western German towns after 1950. who won the local elections were members of Nazzi party or even Gestapo earlier. There was even one of the general secretarys of UN with Nazzi or at least very close to Nazzi past.
Here is interesting question, the same people were in some forms of government, at least at local level before, during and after WWII. Were they corrupted only during WWII, or type of corruption was just different/more or less visible, but their corruption was present during all that time? The answer on that question speaks about human nature, not about type of society.

And in the end, every government service which enforces physical power over the citizens/noncitizens uses almost same methods, so frankly speaking i cant differentiate in that way between Gestapo/NKVD/KGB and lets say Hoover time FBI, or modern CIA's doings in prisons as Guantanamo or other more or less secret services in other countries. The difference is only in number of affected people by those methods, and in wideness of public knowledge about those things.

I hope those who read my post will not get opinion that i am trying to blame only German, English, Japanese, Russian or US governments/services for something, as i said earlier, for EVERY "modern" society can be found (in more or less recent history, at least in last 20 years for most of them) examples about sociopath/psychopath behavior and ethical/moral corruption of government members, governments, or even society in whole. From above mentioned countrys, 4 are from Comadrins post, and i added US at the end only because its Comadrins country, as we all tend to minimize problems in our local societys ( umm, i am probably the same in that way  ).
 

Added on 27th april:

The Japanese book mentioned above is translated on english and published under name "Silence", writers name is Shusaku Endo. About Irish Great Famine plenty of facts can be found in Joseph O'Connor's book, "Star of the sea", where on the beginning of each chapter are cited news articles, parliamentary discusions, private letters of people who lived in that time in Ireland etc. Both books give a little different, more explicite picture about those times then washed up history from Wikipedia.

Edited by jfforums, 27 April 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Purple Library Guy]

To be honest, I think your point is overstated.  It's easy to say "there was X in every modern society" (for whatever value of "modern"), but while I'm all for a certain degree of cynicism I think it's both pointless and inaccurate to talk as if all modern societies are just the same.  To the contrary I think it is not hard to find different degrees of corruption, different degrees of oppression, different degrees or types of sexism and racism.  One can say that "all" modern societies in the 16th-19th centuries were racist, for instance--but the American South, many islands in the Caribbean and parts of South America were still distinct in basing the whole economy on racist slavery, while the Congo under king Leopold of Belgium was different and worse again in basing the economy on literally genocidal slavery, wiping out a huge percentage of the region's population by working them to death and casually massacring them when they ceased to be useful.  I think it's reasonable to draw distinctions between stuff like that and just having ghettos. 

Similarly I would be really surprised to find that all societies in these time periods were exactly equally sexist.  Certainly pre-modern societies varied quite a lot in this respect, even just in Europe--the Celts and Norse rather more enlightened than say the Spanish or Italians.  Celts allowed women to be warriors, to rule in their own right and so on, while Norse women could divorce by just walking out on their husbands and going back to their family and saying "I divorced that guy."  Were Norse women equal?  Not at all.  Was there sexism?  Certainly.  But for sure many other parts of Europe tended to control their women rather more tightly.

John Maynard Keynes used to talk about the size of the "bezzle", taking it for granted that there would be a certain degree of embezzlement and similar financial crime, but noting that if it grew too large in proportion to the amount of normal trade, this could have a bad impact on the economy.  But it does seem as if the size of the "bezzle" does fluctuate; the existence of some is pretty much certain, but its dominance varies.  In modern times it's clear that inequality fluctuates; in the aftermath of the depression it actually shrank for a while, then held steady through about the 70s; since then it has been on the rise, increasingly steeply, and it definitely seems as if one can see a trend at the same time to greater corruption, more police-state-type measures and so forth.  I think just shrugging and saying "Well, there's always corruption and oppression so it's all the same" misunderstands the situation and leads to paralysis.

 

Also, talk about "modern" societies I think misses the point slightly--Comadrin was talking about transitions from a medieval, more classically feudal (which implies a certain decentralization) society to a more modern and, specifically, centralized state, and suggesting that the similarity of structure resulted in similar impacts--as a specific for-instance, an intensification of sexism.  Your counter was mostly about the "modern" societies themselves so didn't really deal with what Comadrin was getting at.

 

(Side note:  Any time someone mentions "gauleiters" I always for a moment think "Gaul eaters?!  Asterix and Obelix must stop them!!!")

[Comadrin]

Damn, I certainly misspelled that one, didn't I?  Can't think how I came to be so careless.  Probably the fault of malt and hops beverages.  And yes, I have all the Asterix books available on amazon.com.  I regard them as the epitome of French manga.  (Yes, I know....  Manga is a purely Japanese phenomenon, all else is manhwa, graphic novels, comics, etc.  I will leave the purists [a.k.a. nitpickers] to argue whether Asterix can be called manga.)  

[Comadrin]

I really enjoyed the latest chapter (The Severed Doll's Head), as it brought the issues of racism and discrimination into the manga in a very subtle and well-written way.  Protest against historical racism has been in Japanese culture for quite some time.  There is a 15th century folk song called "Itsuki No Komoriuta," the lament of a young Korean girl in Kumamoto employed as a babysitter who wonders who will weep for her if she is beaten to death.  No one but the cicadas and my young sister.  

Edited by Comadrin, 15 June 2014 - 06:34 PM.

[Comadrin]

Damn, the latest chapter, "Hell's Gate" was really dark.  Ishinomori Shotaro definitely doesn't skirt around the unpleasant realities of the past when it comes to writing historical fiction.  A five year old girl is doomed to a totally rotten life by the characters of the adults around her, and there's nothing that can be done about it.  Society can certainly be cruel.  I really like how the mangaka tackles subjects like this, rather than writing a "comedy of manners" about the upper classes, samurai, etc., where the "lower classes" are merely a backdrop and not real people.  That kind of story seems to permeate too much historical manga (and historical novels).

Edited by Comadrin, 15 June 2014 - 06:35 PM.

[Comadrin]

Just read chapter 70.  This manga gets better and better as it goes on.  It think that SystematicChaos statement from a main page post,

 

"And I think the way that Sabu and Ichi choose to act amidst that is incredibly inspiring,"

 

really says it all about these stories.  Two men on the lowest rungs of the social ladder are moved by a sense of justice in a society with corruption, hypocrisy, and arbitrary authoritarianism coming down from the top level.  It IS incredibly inspiring.

[Purple Library Guy]

And chapter 73 (among others) explains in graphic fashion why the welfare state is a Good Thing.

[Comadrin]

In the latest chapter, something that I noticed in earlier chapters is definitely reinforced.  Midori is a very good person, as well as a complex character.  In "The Severed Doll Head," she wasn't murdered because she was the only one who didn't treat the half Russian boy as though he was trash.  In this chapter, she tries to treat the boy with compassion.  Unfortunately, it appears to be a little late for it to work on the child.  She's not a dope or an "easy mark," she's just compassionate and empathetic, and is definitely a type of person we could use more of in our world today.

 

 

And chapter 73 (among others) explains in graphic fashion why the welfare state is a Good Thing.

 

The term "welfare state" is a real hot button in today's world.  To many working Americans, it conjures up a vision (with some justification) of people who don't/won't work collecting money on a regular basis, sometimes even to three and four generations of the same family never not receiving the monetary benefit.  In England, many see a vision of Andy Capp collecting his "dole" for the sole purpose of heading for the local pub.  To a lower middle class schmuck with a work ethic (like me), this isn't an endearing vision. No matter what system is put in place for the relief of people in desperate poverty, there will always be those who will try and take advantage of it and get something for nothing.  

 

This "hot button" reaction, however, doesn't reflect what a "welfare state" actually is.  The idea came about in the mid nineteenth century to combat the plight of the poor and the hideous inequality in income and quality of life brought about by untrammeled capitalism.  The Wikipedia definition:

 

     "A welfare state is a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life."

 

seems to sum it up rather well.  Charles Dickens' portrayal of the plight of the poor in Victorian England is stark, graphic, realistic, and not particularly sentimental.  The idea of implementing the concept above, has been fought against since it was proposed up until today, using all sorts of philosophies from social darwinism to yankee work ethic.  The bottom line is that the obscenely wealthy want to stay that way, and the best way to do that is to keep the "lower classes" economically, politically, and socially powerless.  The people fighting it today are not much different in method and motive from those opposing Disraeli and other reformers 150 years ago.

 

Another quote from Wikipedia seemed to me to be particularly apt for the situation in the US (where I live) today:

 

"The charge of paternalism" wrote Ward, "is chiefly made by the class that enjoys the largest share of government protection. Those who denounce it are those who most frequently and successfully invoke it. Nothing is more obvious today than the signal inability of capital and private enterprise to take care of themselves unaided by the state; and while they are incessantly denouncing "paternalism," by which they mean the claim of the defenseless laborer and artisan to a share in this lavish state protection, they are all the while besieging legislatures for relief from their own incompetency, and "pleading the baby act" through a trained body of lawyers and lobbyists. The dispensing of national pap to this class should rather be called "maternalism," to which a square, open, and dignified paternalism would be infinitely preferable."

 

I thought this quote, made by Lester Frank Ward in 1895, perfectly summed up the attitude of big business during the recent depression.

 

I definitely got off the subject of the latest chapter, but I think that this chapter, and also "Hell's Gate" definitely substantiate PLG's statement.  Anyone who thinks that the plight of the children in these two chapters is a thing of the past is definitely deluding himself.

Edited by Comadrin, 21 August 2014 - 07:48 AM.

[Purple Library Guy]

I agree with nearly everything you say, although this one line

sometimes even to three and four generations of the same family never not receiving the monetary benefit.

 

is basically a myth.  Right now in England this meme has been resurrected and talked up quite a bit, so someone did some research, looked through the records--couldn't find a single example.  Still, it reflects a broad attitude that's common and does have some real basis.

Then there's the issue of structural unemployment.  One of the more indirect but powerful ways that the class your Ward quote refers to, gain the state's protection, is by enlisting the state's aid in engineering enough ongoing unemployment to reduce the bargaining power of labour, keeping wages relatively low.  For instance, the classic central bank move of increasing interest rates when the economy "overheats" is specifically directed towards restoring some level of unemployment--ostensibly because this will keep inflation from growing, but the real reason is that they want the unemployment itself.  And in fact, much of the reason the wealthy class are so adamant that the welfare state must be cut is that a strong welfare state undermines the "disciplining" power of high unemployment.  You'll settle for lower wages if the alternative is starvation than if the alternative is a poor but workable existence; ergo a strong welfare state makes it harder to cut wages.

But this kind of undermines the moral arguments against the poor.  If the reason (most) jobless people aren't working is that capitalists are making sure a certain number of people can't get jobs, then presumably it's not because they're lazy and inferior.  If it wasn't them, it would be someone else.  Again, it is in the wealthy class' interest to make everyone think unemployed people all got that way because they are lazy scum; it deflects blame from the unemployment creators, and makes it easier to cut benefits so that the unemployment will be more effective in letting them drive wages down.

 

But the welfare state does have its problems.  It really is paternalistic.  It's run by technocrats and loses touch with the needs of communities.  And it really can create dependency.  And it doesn't solve the problem of the ways the wealthy are messing with the rest of us.  It doesn't, for instance, typically create employment.  There'd be far less need for a welfare state if everyone could have a decent job.  This and many other reasons have left my politics fairly radical.  The welfare state is a Good Thing in the sense that it's better than the capitalist state with no welfare.  But I have ultimately become basically a social anarchist--I'd like to see direct democratic bottom-up control of the state and the companies, democratize everything right down to the ground.  Representation as a model for democratic rule is failing, and megarich sods owning everything in sight as a model for economic structure ain't so hot either.

 

Oh, yeah--as to the kid, seems to me like he was basically on a trajectory to suicide from the beginning.  He didn't want to live.  It's just that he didn't want to give in by killing himself, he wanted to strike back at the whole world until it was forced to kill him.  Maybe if Midori could have had him longer . . . 

Edited by Purple Library Guy, 21 August 2014 - 04:59 PM.

[Comadrin]

You're probably right.  My Grandmother worked for a California county welfare office in the 1950's and 1960's, and she told me that there were families on the rolls whose children went on welfare when they turned 18 (or probably 21 back then).  I probably mixed that up with the "myth."  Thanks for pointing it out and getting me to think it over and look stuff up.  I hate being credulous about urban myths.  I'm pretty good with the ones that come up in recent years, but I probably heard that one when I was ten or twelve years old, and it stuck in my head as one of those ersatz "facts that we've always known."  I shudder to think that thirty years from now there could be a lot of forty-somethings who "know" that 47% of all people refuse to work and want a free ride.

 

P.S.  "Megarich Sods!"  About the best appellation I've ever come across for a despicable class of humans.  I'll file it in my vocabulary along with "ignorami."

Edited by Comadrin, 17 October 2014 - 02:28 AM.