Greetings,
Christopher: I enjoyed very much reading your email. Addressing negative traits are as important as addressing positive ones in a sincere discussion about any topic.
Perhaps another interesting aspect may be retrieved from the "Last Samurai" motion picture. It is clear that the movie suggests the rebellion were being lead in order to preserve tradition and honor (the Emperor´s counselours are portraied as greedy and selfish, whereas the "Samurai" are only honour bound). However, how absurd is conceiving the rebellion as a device to attempt return to the "status quo"? Certainly, the "Samurai", as a class, knew they would lose their prestige and power with the Restoration and the open trade (before the Emperor, the Tokugawa Bafuku agreed on trade terms). Would they be fighting for their status rather by just simple plain honour?
These are just considerations and questions, please do not take them as offensive. I bear deep respect for the subject at hand.
Cheers,
Thiago
----- Original Message -----
From: Yama Kaminari no Date Saburou Yukiie
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:57 AM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: hello again
Konnichi wa, tomodachi
This is going to seem as if I am against samurai, which I am not. I am
rather intrigued by them, in their day. Follow me on this for a moment
if you will...
When Slavery was abolished in the United States, there were people who
still thought slavery was a good idea, and people who didn't. After
the abolishment of slavery, for the most part, former slave owners
rarely went about saying they were members of a class that proudly
owned other human beings and had the right to life or death over them.
The law didn't allow that any more, and for the most part, and the
general populace would not stand for that. The abolishment was drilled
into the public psyche, as was the concept that slave owners were not
needed in a changed society, and that all races and classes should be
free and theoretically equal. Owning slaves was made not-noble.
Samurai had an equal right of life or death over those of lesser
class, held all of the benefits of the current society, and when
Samurai were abolished, the general psyche of the public thought they
were as un-needed as slave owners were in the U.S.
So I suppose one could say they were still slave owners if they were
the descendants of slave owners...but the public would not look kindly
on that, nor would I suspect the public would look kindly on Samurai.
There were good samurai, and the parts of samurai life that were noble
should be celebrated but lets not forget it was a package deal. - just
like there were, I suppose, some good slave owners, but the society
evolved around them.
Just other thoughts...
Christopher
(who celebrates the good parts of samurai life, but is aware there are
bad ones...)
> So theoretically the descendants of the samurai class could
therefore still consider themselves to be samurai, although not with a
legal foundation, with the laws enacted during the Meiji Restoration
being formulated by the winners, if not nessarily/hypothetically those
in the 'right' ??
> Just a thought
> M.Lorimer
>
---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]