Shock of Western vs Japanese values

[Reiku]

My, what is it with all these off topic arguments in here? We were supposed to be discussing the differance between Western and Japanese values--not the age or origin of a culture.

(Why do people always attack something that has no relavance to someone's argument when they can't attack the main point?)

Well, since it's been brought up...

Are you saying that Germans do not feel ties with the ancient Germanic tribes from which they derive ? Or that Italians do not consider themselves as the heirs of the Romans ? Or that modern Greeks regard themselves as completely a different civilization than ancient Greece (but still call the Olympics their invention) ? Well. if you ask them, I sincerely doubt that their reaction will be very different from what Japanese say they feel toward their ancestors.

What a people consider themselves to be and what they actually are can be two completely different things. The fact is that whatever the modern Greeks may beleive, they did not invent the Olympics--they are merely imitating the ancient Greeks just like all the other countries that currently participate in the modern Olympic Games. Likewise, the Itallians may consider themselves the heir to the Romans and the Germans may feel a connection to the tribal cultures that preceded them--but they are not the same civilizations. Even a cursory glance reveals vast differances in the moral, social, and philosophical foundations of these societies compared to their historical counterparts. This is not to say that the values changed over time to adapt to new situations like Japan--but rather that the core beliefs upon which they are founded have changed.

In the same way, the adjective "Gallic" is still used to refer to something typically "French", from France's ancient name "Gallia" (still used in modern Greek language, btw). "Britain" comes from Latin "Britannia". I don't know in the US, but Latin and Ancient Greek are still taught in I think every (Western ?) European school, and my parents' generation almost all had to learn Latin for about 6 years (if you have ever seen some of the Monty Python's movies, you will understand what I mean).

Again, youre not talking about the same civilization--here your talking about anthropology. When used in this sense the term "Gallic" refers to genetic descent--not culture. After all the term "homonid" still applies to modern humans--but that doesn't mean we share the same cultural foundationas a Cro-Magnon or a Neanderthal.

(Though sometimes I wonder... )

As for language, that is merely an example of cultural borrowing. The anceint greek and latin languages were a good thing, so many different cultures copied them and adapted them into their own style.

We use everyday Roman alphabet. English, which comes from the Ancient Anglo-saxon language (outside the Roman empire), has adopted over half of its vocabulary from Latin and Greek. We still quote or learn Greek philosophers (who hasn't heard of Socrates, Plato or Aristotles ?). And we still make movies (not any, but blockbusters) about the Romans (gladiators or various emperors) or Greek legends (Troy, Ulysses, Jason, the Titans, Medusa, Perseus, etc.). The US is a very good example, not just for movies, but architecturally, with neo-classical courts of justice, museums, parliaments, Capitol, White House, etc. Why so much Graeco-Roman influence if it "has been thoroughly uprooted and seperated from it's cultural background", as you say ?

Absolutely, as with the Olympic Games--it is merely the imitation of another culture.

We use gunpowder too, and that comes from easern civilizations--are you suggesting Brittan is descended from ancient China merely because they decided tea and explosives were good inventions and began using them? Since you started this thread to point out the differinces between those cultures I would think not.

Borrowing art and inventions from other cultures is a fairly common practice--but it does not mean that the ideals of the origional culture are borrowed as well.

Then, just looking at names, which reflect a good deal of the culture (and continuity over the centuries, across language groups, and when civilizations collapse and regenerate), I see that most countries of Latin languages still use Roman names, and almost all of them exist and are commonly used in English too (have a look at this short list).

So I personally do not feel like Westerners have lost touch with their ancient (mostly Graeco-Roman) roots, even in the US. I would even go further and say that these roots are so strong and vivid in everyday life, that people from other completely different cultures like Japan are now aware of quite a bit through Western and mostly American influence (eg. they know Greco-Roman gods, some philosophers or Roman emperors, they can read and write in "romaji", build Graeco-Roman style architecture, etc.).

Again, we're talking about influence--not descent. We also borrow from eastern culture and they borrow from us--but as you pointed out, there is a very large difference in the foundation of our values and beliefs.

Theres some key words being used here; culture and civilisation. The aborigines were tribes of people, many many tribes who lived seperate from the other tribes. You cant deny they had culture, but was there civilisation? Not quite.

A more bigoted remark I couldn't have hoped for, Ewok85. You've proved my point excellently--thank you.

Denying that a group of people has a civilization simply because they don't live the way you do is the very definition of prejudice. With most tribal peoples, there are often many seperate and very different goups--not unlike the various cultures of Euorope--if they are sufficiently different, then they might be considered seperate civilizations; but merely being made up of fewer members or being less technologically advanced does not make it any less of a civilization. Some people live with the land, others change it to suit their needs--this is merely another example of the differances between various cultures.

[cicatriz esp]

On the other hand, while Japan itself is relatively young, it has retained much closer ties to it's past than the US has-

If you go to Tokyo or Osaka, you will not be able to disagree more with that statement. In some ways the people of those cities are even more "American" than Americans are.

[Nakan]

Was Yinshu (Inkyo in Japanese) bigger or most sophisticated than Knossos or Troy ? I doubt it. It's only famous for the oracle bones.

No, there were bronze products, vast relic of palace and houses, tombs of kings, etcetc.

Then, if the area it controlled was bigger, the city itslef was probably not huge (from what archeologist found).

Really? Who said that? For example, Rome in the golden age was probably one of the largest cities in the world. As you know, Roman empire controlled very vast area,

Ok, ok. So you have the latest archeological evidence that rice was cultivated in paddies in 350BC in Kyushu, and around 200BC in some parts of the Kanto. But that doesn't change much to the fact that Japan was one of the last countries (if not the last) in Asia to cultivate rice in paddies, nor that agriculture came to Europe long before Japan. Just look at the history of Britain, one of the last places in Europe to adopt agriculture (source):

Oh yes, I don’t deny it.　　Thank you for the information.

But Ancient Greece was not the tiny country it is now (and China was only about half its present size). Greece included settlements all around the Black Sea (in today's Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey...), all along the Western and Southern coast of Turkey, most of Southern Italy (shared with Carthagenians from Phoenicia, present-day Lebanon), and other places in the South of France (Nice, Marseilles, Montpellier were all Greek cities), and Catalonia (near Barcelona).

Yes. Yet, the beginning of emigration by the Greek was　much latter than the era of Mycenaean(BC16 to BC12). They began to emigrate in about BC 800 or so.
By the time the Greek began to spread on Europe, 黄河文明(Huang-he civilization) already spread to north, east, west, and south China, and put 長江文明(Chang Jiang civilization) together.
The area the Greek directly controlled was not so large, because as you know basically the Greek made only city-states. Generally they only occupied tiny area near seashore, not comparable to the territory of 周(Chou dynasty) and kingdoms in the Warring State period.

*one thing to note: of course I never deny the Greek had highly sophisticated culture comparable to those day’s China.

So it streched on an area as wide as present-day China (check on a map, from the Caucasus to Spain), eventhough it was always less populated than China.

You need check it on a map. The square measure of “present day China” is larger than the entire Europe excluding Russia. I think the square measure of Roman empire in the golden age is as large as that of Han dynasty.

Add to this the even older presence of the Phoenicians (influenced by the Assyrian and Babylonian cultures), in the South of Spain (the oldest European city, Gades/Cadiz is in Spain, not Greece).

Yes, I know about them. But their tradition is not directly related to later “Europe”, is it?

Of course, we know as much about the Celtic and Germanic tribes of Central and Western Europe as of the Chinese "kingdoms" of the same period. And that is also part of European history. Paris and London were both originally Celtic towns long before the Romans came.

Comparing “German tribes” to Chinese kingdoms is completely implausible. As of BC era, what ever did they accomplish? I think they should be compared to Korean, Central Asian people, Japanese and nomad people in Mongolia rather than to Chinese.
I know the Celtic had relatively sophisticated culture, but can we compare their culture to Chinese civilization(=黄河文明 and 長江文明) which had created their own characters before BC1300?　

About Huang-he civilization, Chang-jiang civilizartion and early kingdoms.
http://www.chinavoc.com/history/index.asp
http://www.allchinainfo.com/history/period/huanghe.html
http://www.allchinainfo.com/history/...hangjiang.html
http://www.allchinainfo.com/history/period/xia.html
http://www.allchinainfo.com/history/period/shang.html
http://www.h3.dion.ne.jp/~china/point39.html

And What kind of “Chinese kingdoms of the same period” are you talking about?

夏(Xia: legendary kingdom, the existence is debatable, but the city remain expected to be the capital was discovered in recent years)
殷/商(Yin/Shang: from BC16-BC11)
周(Chou: from BC11-BC256)
The followings are main Kngdoms and Duchies in Spring and Autumn period and the Warring State period.
秦(Ch’in: from BC771-206. *In BC221 Ch’in finished unifying all of the kingdoms and duchies.)
齊(Sei: BC1122-BC221)
晋(Shin: ?-BC376)
趙(Chou: BC403-BC222)
楚(So: ?-BC223)
燕(En-BC222)
魏(Gi: BC403-BC225)
韓(Kan: BC403-BC230)
呉(Go: ?-BC473)
越(Etsu: BC600-BC334)
魯(Ro: BC1055-BC249)

*I’m sorry the pronunciations of the kanji name of kingdoms except 夏, 殷, 周, 秦 are Japanese pronounciations.

Of course, you could argue that China had a similar influence on Japan. But do Japanese study Ancient Chinese history as part of Japanese history, in the same way that all Europeans start with Greece and Rome ? Maybe they should, although most Japanese do not want to be considered as offspring of the Chinese (but the early Yayoi era immigration from the mainland to Japan proves it).

I have no idea as to if it is "the same way that all Europeans start with Greece and Rome". But I think you should read Japanese history text book for yourself.

『詳説世界史』
http://www.yamakawa.co.jp/textbooks/...=4-634-70110-3
『詳説日本史』
http://www.yamakawa.co.jp/textbooks/...=4-634-70610-5

*高校の日本史と世界史の教科書で、現在おそらく最もよく使われているものです。　東京や大阪などの大都市 におすまいならば、普通の書店にも置いてあると思います(高校生の参考書コーナーなどに)。
　日本史では、国家(王朝)形成期における中国や朝鮮半島との関係、漢字の受容や、仏教・儒教の影響などそ れなりに詳しく書かれて居ますよ。　ちなみに高校では漢文(Classical Chinese)も必修です。　世界史の方では、四大文明の一つとして、また東アジアとの文化交流も詳しく 書かれています。
　ご自分でお読みになってみてはいかがでしょうか。

although most Japanese do not want to be considered as offspring of the Chinese (but the early Yayoi era immigration from the mainland to Japan proves it).

Huh???

[Maciamo]

Really? Who said that? For example, Rome in the golden age was probably one of the largest cities in the world. As you know, Roman empire controlled very vast area,

You can't compare the Roman empire with the Shang or even Zhou dynasty. The Roman Empire was very centralised, and at its largest stretches from present-day Egypt to Britain, and from Morocco to Armenia/Georgia (Caucasus mountains). The distance from Morocco or Portugal to the Caucasus is about the same as from Tajikistan to North Korea. So that is the length of modern China, but ancient China was much smaller.

Have a look at this map of the Shang dynasty and this one of the Zhou dynasty. The Shang kingdom was about the size of France and Spain combined, while the Zhou was a bit smaller than Western Europe (without Scandinavia), so about the same territory as the Celts, who controlled Britain, Ireland, France, Belgium, Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy and most of Spain.

The area the Greek directly controlled was not so large, because as you know basically the Greek made only city-states. Generally they only occupied tiny area near seashore, not comparable to the territory of 周(Chou dynasty) and kingdoms in the Warring State period.

As I said above, ancient China wasn't so large either, and didn't extend half as far as Greece did. In term of real land area, Alexander the Great's Empire was certianly larger than the first empire of China, under the Qin (Qin Shih Huang di, as first emperor), as it included the whole middle-east from Greece and Turkey to Egypt and as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan. IT is more comparable to the later Han Dynasty's empire at its furthest extend. But at that time, the Roman Empire was already much bigger.

You need check it on a map. The square measure of 菟resent day China� is larger than the entire Europe excluding Russia. I think the square measure of Roman empire in the golden age is as large as that of Han dynasty.

Check this comparative map of the Roman and Han empire. As you can see, modern China or the Roman Empire are both bigger than the Han empire, even if you add the desertic parts of Western China that were controlled during a short time by the Han.

Yes, I know about them. But their tradition is not directly related to later 摘urope�, is it?

The Phoenicians and Carthagenians (the same people) were integrated to the Roman Empire after the two Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. So, in some way they are also part of the Roman heritage.

I know the Celtic had relatively sophisticated culture, but can we compare their culture to Chinese civilization(=黄河文明 and 長江文明) which had created their own characters before BC1300?

Yes, I think they can. If you compare Celtic arts (bronze sculpture, etc.) with Chinese ones of the same period, I can hardly tell the difference.

Greeks developed their first script before the Chinese. It is called the Linear A and was used by the Minoean Civilization between 2000BC and 1200BC. Celts also had their own scripts, but later (the Venetic script from 700BC and theIberian script from 4th century BC, among others).

Of course, the Celts had a mythology (神話) very similar to that of the Greeks and Romans.

The BBC and British Museum have interesting pages about the Celts.

Are you really thinking that culture of 鍍he Celtic tribes� and 敵erman tribes� can be comparable to that of these kingdoms and duchies?

Yes, because their technological or cultural advancement were very similar, and Zhou China (same size as Western Europe) was also composed of over 200 small kingdoms, not unlike the Celtic or Germanic ones. Then the Roman came to unify everything, in the same way as the Qin and Han unified China.

I don't have no idea as to if it is "the same way that all Europeans start with Greece and Rome". But I think you should read Japanese history text book for yourself.

I am just asking you, as a Japanese, do you feel that your roots are in China ? Do you think of the early Chinese dynasties as your country's history ?
I would for the Greeks and Romans, eventhough I am from Northern Europe (but still part of the Roman Empire).

[bossel]

The Phoenicians and Carthagenians (the same people) were integrated to the Roman Empire after the two Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. So, in some way they are also part of the Roman heritage.

Great links, Maciamo!
Adding to the above quote, Phoenicians & Greeks influenced each other in many a way. They dominated the Mediterranean at roughly the same time & had a lot of economical & cultural contacts. The Phoenicians constituted one of the main links between the cultures of Europe & the Middle East. I don't know, how far this influence went, but according to some, quite far. You can't really draw distinct lines between all these cultures.

But I really don't see, what the discussion about size of empires is supposed to prove. Size is not directly connected to culture. You can have high culture without an empire (as the Minoans) & you can have a huge empire with "barbarian" culture (as the Mongols).

[Nakan]

You can't compare the Roman empire with the Shang or even Zhou dynasty. The Roman Empire was very centralised, and at its largest stretches from present-day Egypt to Britain, and from Morocco to Armenia/Georgia (Caucasus mountains). The distance from Morocco or Portugal to the Caucasus is about the same as from Tajikistan to North Korea. So that is the length of modern China,

I didn't "compare". I just "exemplified" what you said was unusual by bringing up Rome. You said, "if the area it controlled was bigger, the city itslef was probably not huge (from what archeologist found)". However, I believe the capital city is huge if its empire/kingdom/city-state is huge(from archeologist found).

but ancient China was much smaller.

Yes, of course. And ancient Minoan and Mycenian territories were much smaller than ancient China.

As I said above, ancient China wasn't so large either,

Yes, but the extent of ancient Minoan and Mycenian civilization weren’t so large either and its extent was smaller than that of Huang-he and Chian-jiang civilization, wasn’t it? Plus, Crete island( where Knossos existed) or even present day Greece is smallar than the territory of Shang/Yin dynasty. What I wanted to say is this.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/hist...rce/greece.htm

and didn't extend half as far as Greece did.

Yes, certainly they didn't extend. But, In Spring and Autumn period and the warring state period, “kingdoms”, “duchies” and other “-doms” occupied from north to south, east to west, all over China(of course very much smaller than “present day China”, though). The period where the Greek began to emigrate to other European region corresponds to Spring and Autumn period of China.
Maps
http://shibakyumei.hp.infoseek.co.jp/map/map.shtml

As for the square measure, I think those kingodoms and duchies are much larger than greek city-states's territory.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/hist...e/grkcolon.htm

In term of real land area,Alexander the Great's Empire was certainly larger than the first empire of China, under the Qin (Qin Shih Huang di, as first emperor), as it included the whole middle-east from Greece and Turkey to Egypt and as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan. IT is more comparable to the later Han Dynasty's empire at its furthest extend. But at that time, the Roman Empire was already much bigger.

Yes, probably it is larger than the Qin, maybe than the Han.
As for the square measure, is Alexander the Great's Empire larger than Roman empire?(I think so)

Check this comparative map of the Roman and Han empire. As you can see, modern China or the Roman Empire are both bigger than the Han empire, even if you add the desertic parts of Western China that were controlled during a short time by the Han.

Thank you for the comparative map. But, If we can add 西域(the desertic parts of Western China), the territory of Han dynasty looks to me definitely larger than that of Romnan empire, though I cannot measure the exact extent……
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehisto...china/han.html

Anyway, What I meant to say is:
As for the square measure, the entire Greek territories(from BC800 to appearance of Alxsander the Great) are much smaller than “present day China” and even the entire chinese kingdoms and duchies in the warring state period, because, as I said before, “basically the Greek made only city-states” and “generally they only occupied tiny area near seashore”.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/hist...e/grkcolon.htm

__________________________________________________ ______________
*by the way, this comparative map looks bit strange.. Han dynasty has never governed Taiwan and the entire Korean peninsula.
http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/emp...omparison.html
__________________________________________________ _____________

Phoenicians and Carthagenians (the same people) were integrated to the Roman Empire after the two Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. So, in some way they are also part of the Roman heritage.

Ah, ok, I get it.

Yes, I think they can. If you compare Celtic arts (bronze sculpture, etc.) with Chinese ones of the same period, I can hardly tell the difference.

Greeks developed their first script before the Chinese. It is called the Linear A and was used by the Minoean Civilization between 2000BC and 1200BC. Celts also had their own scripts, but later (the Venetic script from 700BC and theIberian script from 4th century BC, among others).

Excuse me, which is the “same period” are you talking about, Huang-he and Chang-jian civilization, Xia dynasty, Shang dynasty, or Zhou dynasty? Can those Celtic arts date back to BC1500?

The first script the Greek developed is Liner B , isn’t it? Minoan who developed Liner A were not the Greek and Liner A is undeciphered, as far as I know. Furhthermore, LinerA and B are not related to later “alphabet”. You should compare Liner B with Chinese characters, shouldn’t you?

Anyway, I also admitted that the Greek history is comparable to the Chinese history in the way of its length, sophisticated culture, technology, and impact on other countries. But as you yourselves said, the Celt’s script appeared very later.　And as of BC period, did the Celts leave anything like classics written in Greek or Chinese ?

Of course, the Celts had a mythology (神話) very similar to that of the Greeks and Romans.

? ? Most of the ethnic groups in the world have/had a mythology, don’t they? It is no wonder that the Celts had very similar mythology to that of the Greeks and Romans, because their language is one of the Indo-European languages, like Greek and Latin.

Yes, because their technological or cultural advancement were very similar, and Zhou China (same size as Western Europe) was also composed of over 200 small kingdoms, not unlike the Celtic or Germanic ones. Then the Roman came to unify everything, in the same way as the Qin and Han unified China.

No, those had not been “kingdoms”, but dukedoms, marquis-doms, earldoms, viscount-doms, baron-doms that admitted the suzerainty of 周(Chou/Zhou) dynasty ,until “kingdoms” in south China that didn’t admit it appeared in the late Spring and Autumn period. And I think those “-doms” were not as small as the Celtic and Germanic “tribes”.

As of BC3000, did the Celts build cities surrounded by wall?
http://www.tcn-catv.ne.jp/~woodsorre.../kks-tyok.html
http://www.daido-it.ac.jp/~doboku/ko...aku/gaku9.html

By the way, the Greeks before the appearance of Alexander the Great were also composed of several hundred(or maybe thousand) small city-states like the “Celtic tribes”.. Do ordinary European Historians consider that technological or cultural advancement of the Celts and the Greeks is very similar?

And I ask you again, what ever did "Germanic tribes" accomplish as of Before Christ period?

I am just asking you, as a Japanese, do you feel that your roots are in China ? Do you think of the early Chinese dynasties as your country's history ?

No, I don't feel so. However, I feel most of the roots of East Asian culture(of course including Japan) are in China.(何が「中国」かというのは問題だけれども。古代だったら、日本は中原の王朝の支配の及ばない 江南の民族・王朝との関係の方が深かったはずだから。黄河文明よりも長江文明) 　"The early Chinese dynasties" are not my country's history, but the culture the early Chinese dynasties developed are a part of my country's 文化史(cultural history).


[edited to correct typo and add maps]

[blessed]

...maciamo, i see what you are saying... (cool post)

but: you said generally, it is considered that individualism is deemed juvinile, but laws are made without morals only to keep public order, meaning many things are legal in Japan that are not in the west. This leaves many more personal freedoms and hence more decisions. My question is this: Are you expected to judge individualy what is right for you, or should you follow the group?

e.g. should you decide prostitution is wrong and not indulge yourself in it, or just do what everyone else does?

from your examples, it seems that following the group is the way, but there is a small problem:

if you personaly decide that it is wrong and then lie (deemeed socialy acceptable by example 1) about your opinion, then you are still part of the group as you are not distancing yourself in any way as no one knows you differ in opinion...

So, basically, although group behaviour is encouraged, individualism is not discouraged if you are individual in thought and not in word.

(i dont think this lead anywhere, but im just interested whether you agree)

.................................................. .................................................

anyways... I think that the difference between east (not solely Japan) and west is this:

in the east, people do things for the process.

the tea ceremony does not achieve much (in this i mean, i can make a fine cup of tea 10 times faster), its the process that counts.
people don't jump from job to job, company to company in japan, they mainly stay in one for their whole life. therefore i would say although some final result is expected (money), it is not deemed as important as security otherwise people would seek better pay, working conditions themselves.
no need for promotion, so no final aim.

in the west, people do things for a final aim.

security in a job is relatively unimportant, pretty much everyone aims for higher and higher, leaving a company if possible. one's final aim is chairman.
Security although an aim, is not as long lasting as promotion: once you're educated and in your first or maybe second job at 25, you can arguably stay secure for your whole life (you're aim is achieved and then you work to work). on the other hand you can aim for promotion till you die.
from my experience, one of the few areas where the process is important to westerners, is sports.
But still, if i play tennis, football or anything else with my english or american friends, then they usually seek a match, a result. when i play with japanese, thai or chinese friends, it usually ends up more of a joke around than a competition.



This is based on difference in religions mainly, in my opinion. this is what defines the culture.
in the west, christianity: ultimately, your whole life is unimportant, your aim is to get into heaven.
in the east, buddhism: live a good life. (correct me on this if i'm wrong as i'm not that well informed on this religion yet)