Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R e

I'm not quite sure what point you are making, so please excuse me if my
reply is rather scatter-shot. From what I can see, you were questioning the
usefulness of citing two films, AFTER THE RAIN and SEPPUKU as possible
historical sources for dealing with the lives and conditions of Edo-period
ronin and also the Edo period ethic of "the sword is the soul of the
samurai."

For your information: I cannot read in Japanese so my written sources are in
English or in English translation.

Using fiction and film as historical sources: You are correct in that they
are films and not the same as historical documents. But many times
historical documents from the time period do not exist. As for the two films
I cited, they concern the life of Edo-period ronin. There are hardly any
historical sources that outline the lives of Edo period ronin. So therefore,
historians have usually had to read what little is available and draw
conclusions from little bits of information that they have found, here and
there.

One historical source I did find was in SOURCES OF JAPANESE TRADITION, which
is a compilation of historical sources in English translation. Included in
this book are some writings of Fumazawa Banzin, a ronin and scholar who
lived in the 17th century. He wrote about the conditions of people during
the Edo period and particularly discussed the conditions for the ronin, many
whom he said were starving to death. There are loads of other historical
documents in this book on various topics.

Another source of historical writings is LEGENDS OF THE SAMURAI compiled by
Hiroaki Sato. He compiled English translations of many original documents,
including the 18th century scholarly debates that occurred concerning the 47
Ako ronin and their revenge.

As for using films and other historical fiction: You cannot draw definitive
conclusions from anything seen in a film or a piece of fiction. For the most
part, films and other fiction aren't designed to give out definitive
conclusions about history. What they do is "fill in the gaps" in many cases,
and they raise issues and possibilities. The films SEPPUKU and AFTER THE
RAIN are made by Japanese, in Japanese. I have to use sub-titled versions as
my understanding of Japanese is quite limited.

So therefore as an example: in SEPPUKU, the author of the orignal novel, and
the director of the film, challenge the concept of "the sword is the soul of
the samurai" as a precept that has been frequently empty of any true
morality, as a hypocritical "hammer" used by those in positions of privilege
during the Edo period, over those who are powerless. In the novel and the
film, there is a depiction of an impoverished 17th century ronin forced by
the Ii clan to commit seppuku with his bamboo-blade wakizashi (because he
had pawned his real blade, replacing it with bamboo) after he came to their
mansion begging for money. So this does raise a question: did this sort of
event ever actually happen in historical times, or is this event purely from
the imagination of the author, echoed by the movie director? On an ethical
level, would this response by the Ii clan, be considered by those living in
the time, as an apropriate response? In modern times, would this be
considered an appropriate response? There are no proven answers, just
speculations. But they can be valuable to ponder, at least to some.

Or we could dismiss this whole thing, stating that it's from a novel and a
film, and say that it's just fiction, unproven. And move on, using only
definitive historical documents in their original language for the study of
history. Which is fine as well. To each their own.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of rntihg
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:31 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] Re: h
itokiri kawaka

Hello,

I have been absent from the list for at least a year, but have decided to
see what's what here (albeit from a new email address).

I wanted to comment on the premise of Ms. Boal's questions.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Boal, Nina"
wrote:

> Back in the earlier thread, we were discussing the qualities of a "good"
> samurai. Some people, including myself, brought up two films, AFTER

THE RAIN

> and SEPPUKU. I remember discussing one of the characters in SEPPUKU

who had

> pawned his sword blades in order to try and feed his family.

According to

> some historical accounts I've read, this seemed to have happened
> rather frequently during the Edo period, with impoverished ronin and
> sometimes low-ranked (low-paid) clan samurai pawning their sword
> blades, replacing them with bamboo.

To which historical accounts are you referring? Written when? In Japanese
or English? For a popular or academic audience? Peer reviewed (as in
university and other scholarly presses)?
All of these (and many more) are the first questions one normally would ask
about sources quoted in support of any statement or hypothesis. Without
some idea of the sources that you are using, a statement such as 'some
historical accounts I've read' has an indeterminate authority and leaves me
(and I suspect others) curious as to the accuracy that we can expect from
the sources.

The next thing that I would point out is that these are just movies.
While I like Kurosawa and Tokugawa-set period pieces, I don't beleive anyone
would put much faith in their historical accuracy. That is not to say that
the things that movies depict are necessarily untrue, but simply that they
can't be relied upon as historical documents in the same way that
contemporaneous materials can.

> [snips]
>

Thank you for putting a bit of reason into this discussion.

There is an old Aesop's Fable on the subject of historical documentation. It
goes like this:

One day a man and a lion were walking together. They spotted a statue that
showed Hercules slaying a lion. The man said to the lion, "this statue shows
that humans are superior to lions because you see a man slaying a lion."
Whereupon the lion replied. "A human being made that statue. How different
the portrayal would have been if a lion had made that statue."

In other words, historical documents are usually written by those who have
reason to write their particular viewpoint into history. They are not always
any more accurate than a maker of movies or a writer of fiction. Even a
document that is contemporary to the period being studied could be filled
with propaganda, agendizing, and half-truths in order to push a particular
point of view. Also, a scholarly, non-fiction work could be written by
someone with a ton of PHD letters behind their name and still be filled with
agendizing for whatever point of view the writer is advocating.

If I were to view a film i.e. SEPPUKU or THE SEVEN SAMURAI or ZATOICHI or
whatever, and state without questioning or examining that "this is the
absolute truth; it all happened just as the film depicted," that would be
careless to say the least. But if I were to read a historical work, let's
say by Yamamoto Tsunetomo or else by a modern writer with tons of letters
behind his/her name, tons of degrees, etc. and state without questioning or
examining that "this is the absolute truth; it all happened just as the
writer depicted" then I would be equally careless.

What a person must do is examine MANY of the existing sources, in whatever
form that they exist. Then apply logic. Though being human beings, each with
our own viewpoints and agendas, we will end up applying logic in different
ways. That's what makes discussions such as those on this list interesting.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of onnagozen
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:59 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] Re: h
itokiri kawaka

Quote:Because film is inherently about entertainment, and

> therefore ticket sales, not about accuracy

[some snips from very informative and cogent response]

And how does something that inspires an interest, like a good film does,
automatically become suspect? And how do you know (and I mean KNOW, without
any doubt) that the historical things you read are accurate and truthful and
not slanted to suit the political agenda of the writer.

[snip to end]

A professor once told me that history is nothing more than a set of agreed upon lies.

"Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:Thank you for putting a bit of reason into this discussion.

There is an old Aesop's Fable on the subject of historical documentation. It
goes like this:

One day a man and a lion were walking together. They spotted a statue that
showed Hercules slaying a lion. The man said to the lion, "this statue shows
that humans are superior to lions because you see a man slaying a lion."
Whereupon the lion replied. "A human being made that statue. How different
the portrayal would have been if a lion had made that statue."

In other words, historical documents are usually written by those who have
reason to write their particular viewpoint into history. They are not always
any more accurate than a maker of movies or a writer of fiction. Even a
document that is contemporary to the period being studied could be filled
with propaganda, agendizing, and half-truths in order to push a particular
point of view. Also, a scholarly, non-fiction work could be written by
someone with a ton of PHD letters behind their name and still be filled with
agendizing for whatever point of view the writer is advocating.

If I were to view a film i.e. SEPPUKU or THE SEVEN SAMURAI or ZATOICHI or
whatever, and state without questioning or examining that "this is the
absolute truth; it all happened just as the film depicted," that would be
careless to say the least. But if I were to read a historical work, let's
say by Yamamoto Tsunetomo or else by a modern writer with tons of letters
behind his/her name, tons of degrees, etc. and state without questioning or
examining that "this is the absolute truth; it all happened just as the
writer depicted" then I would be equally careless.

What a person must do is examine MANY of the existing sources, in whatever
form that they exist. Then apply logic. Though being human beings, each with
our own viewpoints and agendas, we will end up applying logic in different
ways. That's what makes discussions such as those on this list interesting.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of onnagozen
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:59 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] Re: h
itokiri kawaka

Quote:Because film is inherently about entertainment, and

> therefore ticket sales, not about accuracy

[some snips from very informative and cogent response]

And how does something that inspires an interest, like a good film does,
automatically become suspect? And how do you know (and I mean KNOW, without
any doubt) that the historical things you read are accurate and truthful and
not slanted to suit the political agenda of the writer.

[snip to end]



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



SPONSORED LINKS
Samurai Japan Japan airline

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "samuraihistory" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> What a person must do is examine MANY of the existing sources, in whatever
> form that they exist. Then apply logic. Though being human beings, each

with

> our own viewpoints and agendas, we will end up applying logic in different
> ways. That's what makes discussions such as those on this list

interesting.

Spock would be proud, I agree with you Nina, I just couldn't resist.
Live long and prosper
Dave

Ned,

I think that the main point of contention that I would have is that history
books all have the intended purpose of being correct whereas fiction's
purpose isn't to be correct, it is to entertain. You are drawing a sharp
line here where a less sharp, more blurry line (so to speak) is needed. Or
perhaps I should say that in making this sharp distinction, you are using a
katana where a surgeon's scalpal would be more useful.

Many history books are intended to push a particular agenda. I suppose that
one can say that the writer of a book that is labeled "history" usually
believes that their main point and their main agenda are both correct.

How many times have you read history books that, for instance, state that
"the following IS the story of the 47 Ako ronin's revenge" and then read a
description that is full of suppositions, assumptions, unfounded facts.
Mainly because all of the details simply are not available. I don't know how
many contrasting and conflicting "historical" accounts of the revenge of the
47 ronin that I've read in who knows how many history books. Like fiction
writers, historical writers will "fill in the gaps" with suppositions when
the actual empirical evidence doesn't exist. So to say outright that each
and every history book is "to try and be correct" misses the point because
that is not the case with all of them.

There really isn't any problem with historical writers doing some "filling
in" with suppositions and assumptions when actual sources aren't available.
If a writer is actually trying to write a correct account, then he/she will
tell us that the account that has been written is speculative. What is
probably the best way to tell us about a certain event is to present several
versions that could be deducted from what empirical facts are available and
then discuss which version makes the most sense to the writer.

But in my experience, most history writers don't do this. Instead, they
present a single version of an event as THE FACTS. And thus there are about
50 or so "factual" versions (at least) in several "history" books of how the
dispute between Lord Asano and Lord Kira took place, what caused Lord Asano
to draw his sword, what happened afterward, how the 47 Ako retainers who
planned an attack on Kira actually accomplished this, what happened after
the attack, etc.

One of the other posters mentioned "peer review" as if somehow that makes
the historical work certified in some way as "accurate" and therefore not to
be questioned. Peers can be just as human, have just as many agendas of
their own to push as the author does. Even those peers with tons of letters
and degrees behind their name can have agendas.

I hate to say it, but history isn't like computer programming or mathematics
(my fields of expertise) with clear-cut divisions between "true" and
"false." So we're going to have several different versions of "the facts"
and we're going to have to learn to use our own heads to read several
sources and decide for ourselves. We will each come up with different
conclusions and therefore, we can have lists like this one to exchange
ideas.

So we get to film and other works clearly labeled as "fiction" and "novels."
To say that the purpose of ALL fiction writers is only to "entertain", that
also misses the point.

Some films, mainly most anime or ZATOICHI or similar films were made mainly
to entertain. If I were to watch a Zatoichi film and then decide on the spot
that there truly existed a blind masseur named Zatoichi who became a master
swordsman, then I would truly be jumping the gun in this conclusion.
Unfortunately, too many people do this, watch a film, or read a book and
unquestioningly decide that it contains "the truth." So we occasionally
encounter someone on this list (or elsewhere) who want to know the "true"
history of Zatoichi. And we have to gently advise them on looking at other
sources that explain that Zatoichi was purely a fictional character.

But some historical fiction, including some historical films, do attempt to
discuss history and cast a light on it. A lot of it is written purely to
entertain. But not always. Back to a film like SEPPUKU, I doubt that anyone
who has seen this film would say that they were "entertained" by it; being
entertained was not my own reaction. This film wasn't designed to entertain,
it was designed to present ideas, reflecting upon speculative history and
then attempting to apply it to contemporary times.

Now to say after watching SEPPUKU that there definitively existed a samurai
named Tsugumo Hanshiro and that he avenged the death of his son-in-law
against the Ii clan -- that would be jumping the gun. But to use the events
presented in a film like this and question as to whether or not similar
events may or may not have happened. And then look for historical sources in
this questioning and draw conclusions. That isn't jumping the gun, that is
using a film as a jumping-off point to explore history.

Now to get on a level of my own experience. When I decided to write "Stray
Dogs," a fictional account of the life of one of the 47 Ako ronin, Fuwa
Kazuemon (anyone can read the story on the Samurai Archives web site), I
didn't write the story to "entertain." I also did NOT write the story to
state that this is THE FACTS about his life. I couldn't do that and I don't
know any historian, even those with multiple degrees in history who could.
Simply because so many gaps exist in his life. I wrote the story because I
am interested in this man's life and thus wanted to delve into it a bit
more.

I've been a bit long-winded here and I apologize if I bored anyone. But it's
difficult to do that "surgeon's scalpal" thing and I don't always accomplish
it.

Cheers, Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:34 PM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] Re:
h itokiri kawaka

[snips, to get to the main point of my own discussion]

Nowhere did I say that history books were 100% correct--the point is, their
purpose is to try to be correct, whereas fiction's purpose isn't to be, it's
to entertain.



__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

Nina, you put it far better than I could, no matter how much time I
spent trying to edit my posts to get to the point! Thank you for
making it clearer.

One thing I left out, and shouldn't have done, is that I was referring
to those of us on this particular forum would know the difference, not
every "stray cat" who wandered in having seen some anime.
The main point that seems to have been lost in the flurry: if a film,
however inaccurate, silly or simple it is, inspires someone to read up
on the subject and actually learn about it, then surely that is a good
thing? It's what got me started 35 years ago and I've never stopped
reading and learning since. I don't understand the references to
Hollywood blockbuster type films though - even I, in my condescending
and snotty manner, would never deign to imply that they were worthy of
inclusion in this discussion......I'm sorry if anyone finds me
condescending, and a little surprised, because to be honest, I've been
embarrassed at the bad tempered way some posters have been treated
when they ask a simple (and simplistic) question, or merely try to
drum up a bit of controversy just to get a discussion going. To those
people I would show infinite patience, because I really, really want
more people to get into the subject that I've loved almost all of my
life. It won't help them to continue learning about the subject if
their every mistake is howled at, and it certainly doesn't encourage
me to keep posting if, by not agreeing, I'm seen to be condescending.
I think "cut out quotes" as favoured here are part of the problem,
they ignore a long and reasoned argument and make the one snippet
quoted sound like an unreasonable shriek. Speaking of shrieking, I've
read several people on different forums howling with rage because
their preferred historical source was not the same as someone else's.
How can they know which is right, and ultimately, does it matter? In
my clumsy way, that was what I was trying to get at, being dogmatic
over a particular version of history to the extent of insulting others
who don't agree, or prefer an alternative source.





--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Boal, Nina"
wrote:

>
> Ned,
>
> I think that the main point of contention that I would have is that

history

> books all have the intended purpose of being correct whereas fiction's
> purpose isn't to be correct, it is to entertain. You are drawing a

sharp

> line here where a less sharp, more blurry line (so to speak) is

needed. Or

> perhaps I should say that in making this sharp distinction, you are

using a

> katana where a surgeon's scalpal would be more useful.
>
> Many history books are intended to push a particular agenda. I

suppose that

> one can say that the writer of a book that is labeled "history" usually
> believes that their main point and their main agenda are both correct.
>
> How many times have you read history books that, for instance, state

that

> "the following IS the story of the 47 Ako ronin's revenge" and then

read a

> description that is full of suppositions, assumptions, unfounded facts.
> Mainly because all of the details simply are not available. I don't

know how

> many contrasting and conflicting "historical" accounts of the

revenge of the

> 47 ronin that I've read in who knows how many history books. Like

fiction

> writers, historical writers will "fill in the gaps" with

suppositions when

> the actual empirical evidence doesn't exist. So to say outright that

each

> and every history book is "to try and be correct" misses the point

because

> that is not the case with all of them.
>
> There really isn't any problem with historical writers doing some

"filling

> in" with suppositions and assumptions when actual sources aren't

available.

> If a writer is actually trying to write a correct account, then

he/she will

> tell us that the account that has been written is speculative. What is
> probably the best way to tell us about a certain event is to present

several

> versions that could be deducted from what empirical facts are

available and

> then discuss which version makes the most sense to the writer.
>
> But in my experience, most history writers don't do this. Instead, they
> present a single version of an event as THE FACTS. And thus there

are about

> 50 or so "factual" versions (at least) in several "history" books of

how the

> dispute between Lord Asano and Lord Kira took place, what caused

Lord Asano

> to draw his sword, what happened afterward, how the 47 Ako retainers who
> planned an attack on Kira actually accomplished this, what happened

after

> the attack, etc.
>
> One of the other posters mentioned "peer review" as if somehow that

makes

> the historical work certified in some way as "accurate" and

therefore not to

> be questioned. Peers can be just as human, have just as many agendas of
> their own to push as the author does. Even those peers with tons of

letters

> and degrees behind their name can have agendas.
>
> I hate to say it, but history isn't like computer programming or

mathematics

> (my fields of expertise) with clear-cut divisions between "true" and
> "false." So we're going to have several different versions of "the

facts"

> and we're going to have to learn to use our own heads to read several
> sources and decide for ourselves. We will each come up with different
> conclusions and therefore, we can have lists like this one to exchange
> ideas.
>
> So we get to film and other works clearly labeled as "fiction" and

"novels."

> To say that the purpose of ALL fiction writers is only to

"entertain", that

> also misses the point.
>
> Some films, mainly most anime or ZATOICHI or similar films were made

mainly

> to entertain. If I were to watch a Zatoichi film and then decide on

the spot

> that there truly existed a blind masseur named Zatoichi who became a

master

> swordsman, then I would truly be jumping the gun in this conclusion.
> Unfortunately, too many people do this, watch a film, or read a book and
> unquestioningly decide that it contains "the truth." So we occasionally
> encounter someone on this list (or elsewhere) who want to know the

"true"

> history of Zatoichi. And we have to gently advise them on looking at

other

> sources that explain that Zatoichi was purely a fictional character.
>
> But some historical fiction, including some historical films, do

attempt to

> discuss history and cast a light on it. A lot of it is written purely to
> entertain. But not always. Back to a film like SEPPUKU, I doubt that

anyone

> who has seen this film would say that they were "entertained" by it;

being

> entertained was not my own reaction. This film wasn't designed to

entertain,

> it was designed to present ideas, reflecting upon speculative

history and

> then attempting to apply it to contemporary times.
>
> Now to say after watching SEPPUKU that there definitively existed a

samurai

> named Tsugumo Hanshiro and that he avenged the death of his son-in-law
> against the Ii clan -- that would be jumping the gun. But to use the

events

> presented in a film like this and question as to whether or not similar
> events may or may not have happened. And then look for historical

sources in

> this questioning and draw conclusions. That isn't jumping the gun,

that is

> using a film as a jumping-off point to explore history.
>
> Now to get on a level of my own experience. When I decided to write

"Stray

> Dogs," a fictional account of the life of one of the 47 Ako ronin, Fuwa
> Kazuemon (anyone can read the story on the Samurai Archives web site), I
> didn't write the story to "entertain." I also did NOT write the story to
> state that this is THE FACTS about his life. I couldn't do that and

I don't

> know any historian, even those with multiple degrees in history who

could.

> Simply because so many gaps exist in his life. I wrote the story

because I

> am interested in this man's life and thus wanted to delve into it a bit
> more.
>
> I've been a bit long-winded here and I apologize if I bored anyone.

But it's

> difficult to do that "surgeon's scalpal" thing and I don't always

accomplish

> it.
>
> Cheers, Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]

> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:34 PM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE:

[samuraihistory] Re:

> h itokiri kawaka
>
> [snips, to get to the main point of my own discussion]
>
> Nowhere did I say that history books were 100% correct--the point

is, their

> purpose is to try to be correct, whereas fiction's purpose isn't to

be, it's

> to entertain.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

--------------------~--> Get

> fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> ---
> Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
> http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
>
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives

store:

> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> Ned,
>

The name is Nate. Not Ned.

> I think that the main point of contention that I
> would have is that history
> books all have the intended purpose of being correct
> whereas fiction's
> purpose isn't to be correct, it is to entertain.

The point of all this is to slam the door on a return
of those who use "but I saw it on Ruroni Kenshin/in a
Kurosawa movie/my sensei told me" as a legitimate
argument. It is not. While we can debate every
historical reference individually, as a whole, the
point of history works is fact, the point of fiction
is not. Yes, history writers have agendas. Yes,
history writers may get facts wrong. Yes, they may
even distort them. However, that's still no comparison
to a work created with a willing suspension of fact
for the purposes of entertainment. There is NOTHING
wrong with entertainment. There is something wrong
when people take entertainment and try to use it to
justify fact. That's the issue here.




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- onnagozen <gozen@...> wrote:

> The main point that seems to have been lost in the
> flurry: if a film,
> however inaccurate, silly or simple it is, inspires
> someone to read up
> on the subject and actually learn about it, then
> surely that is a good
> thing?

No one has argued that it's not a good thing. However,
if that person then refuses to accept multiple
historically accurate arguements to hold on to the
"ninja can fly" belief that first inspires him/her,
then that IS a bad thing. Clavell's Shogun is what
started me, along with many others, down this path.
Because I like the work, I still read it about every
18 months or so. However, I've matured in my studying
to realize that 90% of his story is preposterous, and
though thinly based on the general political situation
circa 1600, none of the actual STORY itself is
anywhere near accurate, not are the details of
linguistics, dress, weaponry, etc. I can be inspired
by it all I want--that doesn't mean it is correct in
fact or detail, nor does it excuse me if I claim that
it is. Inspiration is good-dogmatic clinging to that
inspiration in the face of fact is bad. While you may
think this never happens, I assure you it does on
about a weekly basis. You don't see the posts I and
Kitsuno delete for sheer inanity.

It won't help them to continue learning about

> the subject if
> their every mistake is howled at,

Mistakes aren't howled at. Unwillingness to correct
them is.

Speaking

> of shrieking, I've
> read several people on different forums howling with
> rage because
> their preferred historical source was not the same
> as someone else's.
> How can they know which is right, and ultimately,
> does it matter? In
> my clumsy way, that was what I was trying to get at,
> being dogmatic
> over a particular version of history to the extent
> of insulting others
> who don't agree, or prefer an alternative source.

Those people you mentioned are arguing over versions
of history, correct? In that case, I am in your
camp--you have to read them, compare them, compare
their sources, and make a reasoned decision, but can
you ever know which one is correct and which one
isn't? Perhaps--if you're Tony. Mortals like me,
probably not.

However, that wasn't the issue I addressed. I
addressed the issue of historical works versus fiction
works. You can point out all the issues with various
historical works you wish, the simple fact is that
historical works, by definition, in a historical
context, have greater value FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SEARCHING OUT HISTORICAL FACTS, then fiction works do.
Anybody who's more inspired by Sansom's Volume I than
by Kurosawa's Rashomon has no heart--however, Rashomon
is a work of fiction--inspiration is the point, not
facts. Each accomplishes their goal admirably--and
confusing the two is where we run into issues.




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

Ooops, sorry!

I agree that people who read Ruroni Kenshin or see a Zatoichi film and say
"this is THE TRUTH as it happened" need to be reminded that this is not
necessarily so. But also, saying that "Author X wrote this in his Japanese
history book" also does not make it necessarily the truth.

It looks that we essentially agree. We need to examine all sources and then
use our logic to evaluate the likely worth of each source and then draw our
own conclusions. Then we can discuss them here on the forum.

But also remember that many times a surgeon's scalpal frequently works
better than a single slice with a katana.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:50 PM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri kawaka



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> Ned,
>

The name is Nate. Not Ned.

> I think that the main point of contention that I would have is that
> history books all have the intended purpose of being correct whereas
> fiction's purpose isn't to be correct, it is to entertain.

The point of all this is to slam the door on a return of those who use "but
I saw it on Ruroni Kenshin/in a Kurosawa movie/my sensei told me" as a
legitimate argument. It is not. While we can debate every historical
reference individually, as a whole, the point of history works is fact, the
point of fiction is not. Yes, history writers have agendas. Yes, history
writers may get facts wrong. Yes, they may even distort them. However,
that's still no comparison to a work created with a willing suspension of
fact for the purposes of entertainment. There is NOTHING wrong with
entertainment. There is something wrong when people take entertainment and
try to use it to justify fact. That's the issue here.




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

And I'm still going to make my own point. That there is an overlap in the
use of film or other fiction and the use of non-fiction historical works. I
think that each instance of citing either film and/or historical works needs
to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than by using sweeping
statements i.e. "history books seek to tell the facts whereas film/fiction
seeks to entertain."

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:01 PM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri k

[snips]

However, that wasn't the issue I addressed. I addressed the issue of
historical works versus fiction works. You can point out all the issues with
various historical works you wish, the simple fact is that historical works,
by definition, in a historical context, have greater value FOR THE PURPOSE
OF SEARCHING OUT HISTORICAL FACTS, then fiction works do.
Anybody who's more inspired by Sansom's Volume I than by Kurosawa's Rashomon
has no heart--however, Rashomon is a work of fiction--inspiration is the
point, not facts. Each accomplishes their goal admirably--and confusing the
two is where we run into issues.




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> Ooops, sorry!
>
> I agree that people who read Ruroni Kenshin or see a
> Zatoichi film and say
> "this is THE TRUTH as it happened" need to be
> reminded that this is not
> necessarily so. But also, saying that "Author X
> wrote this in his Japanese
> history book" also does not make it necessarily the
> truth.

The problem with this whole conversation is, I'm
challenging part A. You and Onna are then bringing in
part B--where I don't disagree with you--and giving it
as much weight as part A.

> But also remember that many times a surgeon's
> scalpal frequently works
> better than a single slice with a katana.

See, here's my problem--I hold a 5th Dan in
Tank-jutsu.




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Maybe I'm mis-reading something. I'm not sure where Part A ends and Part B
begins. And actually, this may be the best way to make my point. That the
borderline between Part A and Part B is not as distinct as some would like
to make it out to be. Where some would see Part A as being a disjoint set
from Part B, I see them as intersecting sets. Oh lord, here I go with my
math. Can't help it, I was a math major. Oh well....

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:15 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri kawaka



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> Ooops, sorry!
>
> I agree that people who read Ruroni Kenshin or see a Zatoichi film and
> say "this is THE TRUTH as it happened" need to be reminded that this
> is not necessarily so. But also, saying that "Author X wrote this in
> his Japanese history book" also does not make it necessarily the
> truth.

The problem with this whole conversation is, I'm challenging part A. You and
Onna are then bringing in part B--where I don't disagree with you--and
giving it as much weight as part A.

> But also remember that many times a surgeon's scalpal frequently works
> better than a single slice with a katana.

See, here's my problem--I hold a 5th Dan in Tank-jutsu.




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> And I'm still going to make my own point.

THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT me.
Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen did.
You simply followed on with his/her post, so therefore
came across as doing the same thing.

Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've said,
with a tangentially perpendicular point. If you reply
directly to me, I'm going to directly answer,
especially when addressed in an argumentative and
combative manner. I've got no problem if you or he/she
or anyone wants to argue the merits and foibles of
history books, in specific, or in general. I DO have a
problem when this is couched as a counterargument to
my statement, because it doesn't counter my statement
whatsoever.

What we had was this:

Nate: "Tangerines are not red."

Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So how
do we really know which ones are red and which ones
aren't? Does it matter? What does it matter if your
apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as long as it
inspires me? And certain tangerines may be of such
hues of orange that they may be very very close to
red."

Simple facts: not everyone can tell that tangerines
are not red. Many tangerines may be so orange they are
close to being red, but being red is not the point of
a tangerine. For purposes of this analogy, all apples
SHOULD be red--the fact that many are green or brown
is a warning to the partaker that they need to check
their apples before they eat them, but not grounds for
saying that a. all apples are bad, or b. all
tangerines are equally red with apples.



That there

> is an overlap in the
> use of film or other fiction and the use of
> non-fiction historical works. I
> think that each instance of citing either film
> and/or historical works needs
> to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than
> by using sweeping
> statements i.e. "history books seek to tell the
> facts whereas film/fiction
> seeks to entertain."
>
> Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:01 PM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
> [snips]
>
> However, that wasn't the issue I addressed. I
> addressed the issue of
> historical works versus fiction works. You can point
> out all the issues with
> various historical works you wish, the simple fact
> is that historical works,
> by definition, in a historical context, have greater
> value FOR THE PURPOSE
> OF SEARCHING OUT HISTORICAL FACTS, then fiction
> works do.
> Anybody who's more inspired by Sansom's Volume I
> than by Kurosawa's Rashomon
> has no heart--however, Rashomon is a work of
> fiction--inspiration is the
> point, not facts. Each accomplishes their goal
> admirably--and confusing the
> two is where we run into issues.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---
> Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
> http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
>
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store:
> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

Part A:

> I agree that people who read Ruroni Kenshin or see a

Zatoichi film and

> say "this is THE TRUTH as it happened" need to be

reminded that this

> is not necessarily so.

Part B:

But also, saying that "Author X wrote this in

> his Japanese history book" also does not make it

necessarily the

> truth.

The "But also" is a clear connector, and therefore
also the dividing line between two parts. You may be a
math major, but I'm a language major.

While B is a tangential logical step that may outgrow
from Part A, I stopped at Part A. And to then attack
my statement of Part A by stating Part B, makes no
sense, and of course raises my hackles. B does not
mean that A is incorrect.



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> Maybe I'm mis-reading something. I'm not sure where
> Part A ends and Part B
> begins. And actually, this may be the best way to
> make my point. That the
> borderline between Part A and Part B is not as
> distinct as some would like
> to make it out to be. Where some would see Part A as
> being a disjoint set
> from Part B, I see them as intersecting sets. Oh
> lord, here I go with my
> math. Can't help it, I was a math major. Oh
> well....
>
> Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:15 AM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri kawaka
>
>
>
> --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
>
> > Ooops, sorry!
> >
> > I agree that people who read Ruroni Kenshin or see
> a Zatoichi film and
> > say "this is THE TRUTH as it happened" need to be
> reminded that this
> > is not necessarily so. But also, saying that
> "Author X wrote this in
> > his Japanese history book" also does not make it
> necessarily the
> > truth.
>
> The problem with this whole conversation is, I'm
> challenging part A. You and
> Onna are then bringing in part B--where I don't
> disagree with you--and
> giving it as much weight as part A.
>
> > But also remember that many times a surgeon's
> scalpal frequently works
> > better than a single slice with a katana.
>
> See, here's my problem--I hold a 5th Dan in
> Tank-jutsu.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Get
> fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
> Yahoo! your home page
>

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM

>

--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> ---
> Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
> http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
>
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store:
> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

I cannot speak for others, nor do I claim to do so. All my posts are
directed at the group as a whole, as I assume that most posts mailed to the
group are directed. If I intend a post strictly for you, then I'll email you
directly.

I quoted your post because you were the one making the specific point that I
wished to address.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:26 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri k



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> And I'm still going to make my own point.

THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT me.
Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen did.
You simply followed on with his/her post, so therefore came across as doing
the same thing.

Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've said, with a tangentially
perpendicular point. If you reply directly to me, I'm going to directly
answer, especially when addressed in an argumentative and combative manner.
I've got no problem if you or he/she or anyone wants to argue the merits and
foibles of history books, in specific, or in general. I DO have a problem
when this is couched as a counterargument to my statement, because it
doesn't counter my statement whatsoever.

What we had was this:

Nate: "Tangerines are not red."

Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So how do we really know which
ones are red and which ones aren't? Does it matter? What does it matter if
your apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as long as it inspires me? And
certain tangerines may be of such hues of orange that they may be very very
close to red."

Simple facts: not everyone can tell that tangerines are not red. Many
tangerines may be so orange they are close to being red, but being red is
not the point of a tangerine. For purposes of this analogy, all apples
SHOULD be red--the fact that many are green or brown is a warning to the
partaker that they need to check their apples before they eat them, but not
grounds for saying that a. all apples are bad, or b. all tangerines are
equally red with apples.



That there

> is an overlap in the
> use of film or other fiction and the use of non-fiction historical
> works. I think that each instance of citing either film and/or
> historical works needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather
> than by using sweeping statements i.e. "history books seek to tell the
> facts whereas film/fiction seeks to entertain."
>
> Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:01 PM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
> [snips]
>
> However, that wasn't the issue I addressed. I addressed the issue of
> historical works versus fiction works. You can point out all the
> issues with various historical works you wish, the simple fact is that
> historical works, by definition, in a historical context, have greater
> value FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEARCHING OUT HISTORICAL FACTS, then fiction
> works do.
> Anybody who's more inspired by Sansom's Volume I than by Kurosawa's
> Rashomon has no heart--however, Rashomon is a work of
> fiction--inspiration is the point, not facts. Each accomplishes their
> goal admirably--and confusing the two is where we run into issues.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---
> Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
> http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
>
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives
> store:
> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> I cannot speak for others, nor do I claim to do so.
> All my posts are
> directed at the group as a whole, as I assume that
> most posts mailed to the
> group are directed. If I intend a post strictly for
> you, then I'll email you
> directly.
>
> I quoted your post because you were the one making
> the specific point that I
> wished to address.
>
> Nina

I was addressed directly in the post by name--how else
ought I take it?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:26 AM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
>
>
> --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
>
> > And I'm still going to make my own point.
>
> THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT me.
> Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen
> did.
> You simply followed on with his/her post, so
> therefore came across as doing
> the same thing.
>
> Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've said,
> with a tangentially
> perpendicular point. If you reply directly to me,
> I'm going to directly
> answer, especially when addressed in an
> argumentative and combative manner.
> I've got no problem if you or he/she or anyone wants
> to argue the merits and
> foibles of history books, in specific, or in
> general. I DO have a problem
> when this is couched as a counterargument to my
> statement, because it
> doesn't counter my statement whatsoever.
>
> What we had was this:
>
> Nate: "Tangerines are not red."
>
> Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So how
> do we really know which
> ones are red and which ones aren't? Does it matter?
> What does it matter if
> your apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as long
> as it inspires me? And
> certain tangerines may be of such hues of orange
> that they may be very very
> close to red."
>
> Simple facts: not everyone can tell that tangerines
> are not red. Many
> tangerines may be so orange they are close to being
> red, but being red is
> not the point of a tangerine. For purposes of this
> analogy, all apples
> SHOULD be red--the fact that many are green or brown
> is a warning to the
> partaker that they need to check their apples before
> they eat them, but not
> grounds for saying that a. all apples are bad, or b.
> all tangerines are
> equally red with apples.
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

I addressed you by name (and I profusely apologize for making the mistake on
your name) because yours was the post I was replying to. Still, it is
directed to the group and anyone can respond to it.

I won't address anyone by name any longer if it causes this sort of
misunderstanding.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:39 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri k



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> I cannot speak for others, nor do I claim to do so.
> All my posts are
> directed at the group as a whole, as I assume that most posts mailed
> to the group are directed. If I intend a post strictly for you, then
> I'll email you directly.
>
> I quoted your post because you were the one making the specific point
> that I wished to address.
>
> Nina

I was addressed directly in the post by name--how else ought I take it?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:26 AM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
>
>
> --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
>
> > And I'm still going to make my own point.
>
> THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT me.
> Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen did.
> You simply followed on with his/her post, so therefore came across as
> doing the same thing.
>
> Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've said, with a
> tangentially perpendicular point. If you reply directly to me, I'm
> going to directly answer, especially when addressed in an
> argumentative and combative manner.
> I've got no problem if you or he/she or anyone wants to argue the
> merits and foibles of history books, in specific, or in general. I DO
> have a problem when this is couched as a counterargument to my
> statement, because it doesn't counter my statement whatsoever.
>
> What we had was this:
>
> Nate: "Tangerines are not red."
>
> Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So how do we really know
> which ones are red and which ones aren't? Does it matter?
> What does it matter if
> your apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as long as it inspires me?
> And certain tangerines may be of such hues of orange that they may be
> very very close to red."
>
> Simple facts: not everyone can tell that tangerines are not red. Many
> tangerines may be so orange they are close to being red, but being red
> is not the point of a tangerine. For purposes of this analogy, all
> apples SHOULD be red--the fact that many are green or brown is a
> warning to the partaker that they need to check their apples before
> they eat them, but not grounds for saying that a. all apples are bad,
> or b.
> all tangerines are
> equally red with apples.
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

First, I'm not "attacking" any of your statements. I'm just questioning,
seeking clarification. And sometimes disasgreeing with them. That's not an
"attack."

Okay, a point of disagreement: Saying "but also" concerning Part B is NOT a
dividing line between the two statements, and wasn't intended to be.
Instead, I'm trying to say (perhaps not so clearly, though I'm trying) that
the line between fiction and history books is not ALWAYS so clear as far as
using them to study history. It looks like that it's in this one area where
we disagree.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:34 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri kawaka

Part A:

> I agree that people who read Ruroni Kenshin or see a

Zatoichi film and

> say "this is THE TRUTH as it happened" need to be

reminded that this

> is not necessarily so.

Part B:

But also, saying that "Author X wrote this in

> his Japanese history book" also does not make it

necessarily the

> truth.

The "But also" is a clear connector, and therefore also the dividing line
between two parts. You may be a math major, but I'm a language major.

While B is a tangential logical step that may outgrow from Part A, I stopped
at Part A. And to then attack my statement of Part A by stating Part B,
makes no sense, and of course raises my hackles. B does not mean that A is
incorrect.

No, no--you're misunderstanding me. Onnagozen
specifically addressed me by name, in the post
replying to me which I summed up in the logical
syllogism below. When I said "how else ought I take
it?" I was referring to Onnagozen's post, not yours.

You've been simply arguing a point--and not a bad one,
though we're on occaision coming at cross purposes. No
problem. However, Onnagozen attacks my point that
fiction is not the proper place to study your
historical facts by saying that history books aren't
all correct, so who cares? That a. makes no logical
sense, and b. was done in such a flippant,
overbearing, condescending manner (to have the gall to
suggest that I was saying fiction was a BAD thing is
simply unnerving) that yes, I take issue with it.

The only argument I can see that he/she is trying to
make that makes sense would be: History books have
flaws, so they are worthless, so you might as well
learn your history from movies.

That leaves us with everyone getting their origins of
WWII from "Pearl Harbor" and "Schindler's List".
Whether you liked or disliked or were inspired or
think they are great or bad for fostering historical
discussion, to say that this alone suffices and you
can get a grasp of history without trying to find
actual historical fact is plain mystifying to me.





--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> I addressed you by name (and I profusely apologize
> for making the mistake on
> your name) because yours was the post I was replying
> to. Still, it is
> directed to the group and anyone can respond to it.
>
> I won't address anyone by name any longer if it
> causes this sort of
> misunderstanding.
>
> Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:39 AM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
>
>
> --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
>
> > I cannot speak for others, nor do I claim to do
> so.
> > All my posts are
> > directed at the group as a whole, as I assume that
> most posts mailed
> > to the group are directed. If I intend a post
> strictly for you, then
> > I'll email you directly.
> >
> > I quoted your post because you were the one making
> the specific point
> > that I wished to address.
> >
> > Nina
>
> I was addressed directly in the post by name--how
> else ought I take it?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:26 AM
> > To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai?
> (was
> > RE: [samuraihistory] R
> > e: h itokiri k
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
> >
> > > And I'm still going to make my own point.
> >
> > THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT
> me.
> > Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen
> did.
> > You simply followed on with his/her post, so
> therefore came across as
> > doing the same thing.
> >
> > Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've
> said, with a
> > tangentially perpendicular point. If you reply
> directly to me, I'm
> > going to directly answer, especially when
> addressed in an
> > argumentative and combative manner.
> > I've got no problem if you or he/she or anyone
> wants to argue the
> > merits and foibles of history books, in specific,
> or in general. I DO
> > have a problem when this is couched as a
> counterargument to my
> > statement, because it doesn't counter my statement
> whatsoever.
> >
> > What we had was this:
> >
> > Nate: "Tangerines are not red."
> >
> > Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So
> how do we really know
> > which ones are red and which ones aren't? Does it
> matter?
> > What does it matter if
> > your apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as
> long as it inspires me?
> > And certain tangerines may be of such hues of
> orange that they may be
> > very very close to red."
> >
> > Simple facts: not everyone can tell that
> tangerines are not red. Many
> > tangerines may be so orange they are close to
> being red, but being red
> > is not the point of a tangerine. For purposes of
> this analogy, all
> > apples SHOULD be red--the fact that many are green
> or brown is a
> > warning to the partaker that they need to check
> their apples before
> > they eat them, but not grounds for saying that a.
> all apples are bad,
> > or b.
> > all tangerines are
> > equally red with apples.
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---
> Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
> http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
>
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store:
> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Why are you writing to me about another poster? I would address this point
to the other poster, or cite the other poster directly, rather than
directing this at me. Because it's getting me confused, as you can well see.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:50 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri k

No, no--you're misunderstanding me. Onnagozen specifically addressed me by
name, in the post replying to me which I summed up in the logical syllogism
below. When I said "how else ought I take it?" I was referring to
Onnagozen's post, not yours.

You've been simply arguing a point--and not a bad one, though we're on
occaision coming at cross purposes. No problem. However, Onnagozen attacks
my point that fiction is not the proper place to study your historical facts
by saying that history books aren't all correct, so who cares? That a. makes
no logical sense, and b. was done in such a flippant, overbearing,
condescending manner (to have the gall to suggest that I was saying fiction
was a BAD thing is simply unnerving) that yes, I take issue with it.

The only argument I can see that he/she is trying to make that makes sense
would be: History books have flaws, so they are worthless, so you might as
well learn your history from movies.

That leaves us with everyone getting their origins of WWII from "Pearl
Harbor" and "Schindler's List".
Whether you liked or disliked or were inspired or think they are great or
bad for fostering historical discussion, to say that this alone suffices and
you can get a grasp of history without trying to find actual historical fact
is plain mystifying to me.





--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> I addressed you by name (and I profusely apologize for making the
> mistake on your name) because yours was the post I was replying to.
> Still, it is directed to the group and anyone can respond to it.
>
> I won't address anyone by name any longer if it causes this sort of
> misunderstanding.
>
> Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:39 AM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
>
>
> --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
>
> > I cannot speak for others, nor do I claim to do
> so.
> > All my posts are
> > directed at the group as a whole, as I assume that
> most posts mailed
> > to the group are directed. If I intend a post
> strictly for you, then
> > I'll email you directly.
> >
> > I quoted your post because you were the one making
> the specific point
> > that I wished to address.
> >
> > Nina
>
> I was addressed directly in the post by name--how else ought I take
> it?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:26 AM
> > To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai?
> (was
> > RE: [samuraihistory] R
> > e: h itokiri k
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
> >
> > > And I'm still going to make my own point.
> >
> > THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT
> me.
> > Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen
> did.
> > You simply followed on with his/her post, so
> therefore came across as
> > doing the same thing.
> >
> > Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've
> said, with a
> > tangentially perpendicular point. If you reply
> directly to me, I'm
> > going to directly answer, especially when
> addressed in an
> > argumentative and combative manner.
> > I've got no problem if you or he/she or anyone
> wants to argue the
> > merits and foibles of history books, in specific,
> or in general. I DO
> > have a problem when this is couched as a
> counterargument to my
> > statement, because it doesn't counter my statement
> whatsoever.
> >
> > What we had was this:
> >
> > Nate: "Tangerines are not red."
> >
> > Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So
> how do we really know
> > which ones are red and which ones aren't? Does it
> matter?
> > What does it matter if
> > your apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as
> long as it inspires me?
> > And certain tangerines may be of such hues of
> orange that they may be
> > very very close to red."
> >
> > Simple facts: not everyone can tell that
> tangerines are not red. Many
> > tangerines may be so orange they are close to
> being red, but being red
> > is not the point of a tangerine. For purposes of
> this analogy, all
> > apples SHOULD be red--the fact that many are green
> or brown is a
> > warning to the partaker that they need to check
> their apples before
> > they eat them, but not grounds for saying that a.
> all apples are bad,
> > or b.
> > all tangerines are
> > equally red with apples.
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---
> Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
> http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
>
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives
> store:
> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> First, I'm not "attacking" any of your statements.
> I'm just questioning,
> seeking clarification. And sometimes disasgreeing
> with them. That's not an
> "attack."

*sigh* Haven't said *YOU* were, Nina...see last
message...

> Okay, a point of disagreement: Saying "but also"
> concerning Part B is NOT a
> dividing line between the two statements, and wasn't
> intended to be.
> Instead, I'm trying to say (perhaps not so clearly,
> though I'm trying) that
> the line between fiction and history books is not
> ALWAYS so clear as far as
> using them to study history. It looks like that it's
> in this one area where
> we disagree.

It's a connector, connecting two seperate thoughts. If
they weren't two seperate thoughts, there would be no
need to connect them. Regardless, I had thought A. You
*MAY* have thoughts A and B, and may have them
connected. No problem--good for you. However, our
intrepid Onna had thought B, and used thought B to try
to contradict my thought A. I don't see how that
works.




__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Please direct any concerns about Onna to her. We are NOT one and the same
person.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:53 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri kawaka



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> First, I'm not "attacking" any of your statements.
> I'm just questioning,
> seeking clarification. And sometimes disasgreeing with them. That's
> not an "attack."

*sigh* Haven't said *YOU* were, Nina...see last message...

> Okay, a point of disagreement: Saying "but also"
> concerning Part B is NOT a
> dividing line between the two statements, and wasn't intended to be.
> Instead, I'm trying to say (perhaps not so clearly, though I'm trying)
> that the line between fiction and history books is not ALWAYS so clear
> as far as using them to study history. It looks like that it's in this
> one area where we disagree.

It's a connector, connecting two seperate thoughts. If they weren't two
seperate thoughts, there would be no need to connect them. Regardless, I had
thought A. You
*MAY* have thoughts A and B, and may have them connected. No problem--good
for you. However, our intrepid Onna had thought B, and used thought B to try
to contradict my thought A. I don't see how that works.




__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

Because you've been agreeing with his statements?
Backing up his misguided arguments?

*sigh*

It's 11 PM, I've got to catch a flight in the morning,
and honestly, I really don't care anymore. Your (the
two of you) arguments are interwoven--I can't argue
one without bringing out the other. However, I simply
don't care anymore. Fine--look everyone, Nate hates
fiction. Nate believes all history books, even
Turnbull's crappy Osprey copies, must be 100% correct.
That's how I've been characterized, and I'm not going
to fight it anymore.

Damn.



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> Why are you writing to me about another poster? I
> would address this point
> to the other poster, or cite the other poster
> directly, rather than
> directing this at me. Because it's getting me
> confused, as you can well see.
>
> Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:50 AM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
> No, no--you're misunderstanding me. Onnagozen
> specifically addressed me by
> name, in the post replying to me which I summed up
> in the logical syllogism
> below. When I said "how else ought I take it?" I was
> referring to
> Onnagozen's post, not yours.
>
> You've been simply arguing a point--and not a bad
> one, though we're on
> occaision coming at cross purposes. No problem.
> However, Onnagozen attacks
> my point that fiction is not the proper place to
> study your historical facts
> by saying that history books aren't all correct, so
> who cares? That a. makes
> no logical sense, and b. was done in such a
> flippant, overbearing,
> condescending manner (to have the gall to suggest
> that I was saying fiction
> was a BAD thing is simply unnerving) that yes, I
> take issue with it.
>
> The only argument I can see that he/she is trying to
> make that makes sense
> would be: History books have flaws, so they are
> worthless, so you might as
> well learn your history from movies.
>
> That leaves us with everyone getting their origins
> of WWII from "Pearl
> Harbor" and "Schindler's List".
> Whether you liked or disliked or were inspired or
> think they are great or
> bad for fostering historical discussion, to say that
> this alone suffices and
> you can get a grasp of history without trying to
> find actual historical fact
> is plain mystifying to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
>
> > I addressed you by name (and I profusely apologize
> for making the
> > mistake on your name) because yours was the post I
> was replying to.
> > Still, it is directed to the group and anyone can
> respond to it.
> >
> > I won't address anyone by name any longer if it
> causes this sort of
> > misunderstanding.
> >
> > Nina
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:39 AM
> > To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai?
> (was
> > RE: [samuraihistory] R
> > e: h itokiri k
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot speak for others, nor do I claim to do
> > so.
> > > All my posts are
> > > directed at the group as a whole, as I assume
> that
> > most posts mailed
> > > to the group are directed. If I intend a post
> > strictly for you, then
> > > I'll email you directly.
> > >
> > > I quoted your post because you were the one
> making
> > the specific point
> > > that I wished to address.
> > >
> > > Nina
> >
> > I was addressed directly in the post by name--how
> else ought I take
> > it?
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> > > On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:26 AM
> > > To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai?
> > (was
> > > RE: [samuraihistory] R
> > > e: h itokiri k
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I'm still going to make my own point.
> > >
> > > THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT
> > me.
> > > Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen
> > did.
> > > You simply followed on with his/her post, so
> > therefore came across as
> > > doing the same thing.
> > >
> > > Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've
> > said, with a
> > > tangentially perpendicular point. If you reply
> > directly to me, I'm
> > > going to directly answer, especially when
> > addressed in an
> > > argumentative and combative manner.
> > > I've got no problem if you or he/she or anyone
> > wants to argue the
> > > merits and foibles of history books, in
> specific,
> > or in general. I DO
> > > have a problem when this is couched as a
> > counterargument to my
> > > statement, because it doesn't counter my
> statement
> > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > What we had was this:
> > >
> > > Nate: "Tangerines are not red."
> > >
> > > Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So
> > how do we really know
> > > which ones are red and which ones aren't? Does
> it
> > matter?
> > > What does it matter if
> > > your apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as
> > long as it inspires me?
> > > And certain tangerines may be of such hues of
> > orange that they may be
> > > very very close to red."
> > >
> > > Simple facts: not everyone can tell that
> > tangerines are not red. Many
> > > tangerines may be so orange they are close to
> > being red, but being red
> > > is not the point of a tangerine. For purposes of
> > this analogy, all
> > > apples SHOULD be red--the fact that many are
> green
> > or brown is a
> > > warning to the partaker that they need to check
> > their apples before
> > > they eat them, but not grounds for saying that
> a.
> > all apples are bad,
> > > or b.
> > > all tangerines are
> > > equally red with apples.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>

=== message truncated ===




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

My friend, no one hates anyone or anything. No one has said that here that I
know of.

Calm down. Have a pleasant sleep and have a pleasant flight tomorrow.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:58 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri k

Because you've been agreeing with his statements?
Backing up his misguided arguments?

*sigh*

It's 11 PM, I've got to catch a flight in the morning, and honestly, I
really don't care anymore. Your (the two of you) arguments are interwoven--I
can't argue one without bringing out the other. However, I simply don't care
anymore. Fine--look everyone, Nate hates fiction. Nate believes all history
books, even Turnbull's crappy Osprey copies, must be 100% correct.
That's how I've been characterized, and I'm not going to fight it anymore.

Damn.



--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> Why are you writing to me about another poster? I would address this
> point to the other poster, or cite the other poster directly, rather
> than directing this at me. Because it's getting me confused, as you
> can well see.
>
> Nina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:50 AM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was
> RE: [samuraihistory] R
> e: h itokiri k
>
> No, no--you're misunderstanding me. Onnagozen specifically addressed
> me by name, in the post replying to me which I summed up in the
> logical syllogism below. When I said "how else ought I take it?" I was
> referring to Onnagozen's post, not yours.
>
> You've been simply arguing a point--and not a bad one, though we're on
> occaision coming at cross purposes. No problem.
> However, Onnagozen attacks
> my point that fiction is not the proper place to study your historical
> facts by saying that history books aren't all correct, so who cares?
> That a. makes no logical sense, and b. was done in such a flippant,
> overbearing, condescending manner (to have the gall to suggest that I
> was saying fiction was a BAD thing is simply unnerving) that yes, I
> take issue with it.
>
> The only argument I can see that he/she is trying to make that makes
> sense would be: History books have flaws, so they are worthless, so
> you might as well learn your history from movies.
>
> That leaves us with everyone getting their origins of WWII from "Pearl
> Harbor" and "Schindler's List".
> Whether you liked or disliked or were inspired or think they are great
> or bad for fostering historical discussion, to say that this alone
> suffices and you can get a grasp of history without trying to find
> actual historical fact is plain mystifying to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
>
> > I addressed you by name (and I profusely apologize
> for making the
> > mistake on your name) because yours was the post I
> was replying to.
> > Still, it is directed to the group and anyone can
> respond to it.
> >
> > I won't address anyone by name any longer if it
> causes this sort of
> > misunderstanding.
> >
> > Nina
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:39 AM
> > To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai?
> (was
> > RE: [samuraihistory] R
> > e: h itokiri k
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot speak for others, nor do I claim to do
> > so.
> > > All my posts are
> > > directed at the group as a whole, as I assume
> that
> > most posts mailed
> > > to the group are directed. If I intend a post
> > strictly for you, then
> > > I'll email you directly.
> > >
> > > I quoted your post because you were the one
> making
> > the specific point
> > > that I wished to address.
> > >
> > > Nina
> >
> > I was addressed directly in the post by name--how
> else ought I take
> > it?
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
> > > On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
> > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:26 AM
> > > To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: RE: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai?
> > (was
> > > RE: [samuraihistory] R
> > > e: h itokiri k
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I'm still going to make my own point.
> > >
> > > THEN direct that point to the group, and not AT
> > me.
> > > Not that you necessarily did this, but Onnagozen
> > did.
> > > You simply followed on with his/her post, so
> > therefore came across as
> > > doing the same thing.
> > >
> > > Onnagozen replied directly to me, but as we've
> > said, with a
> > > tangentially perpendicular point. If you reply
> > directly to me, I'm
> > > going to directly answer, especially when
> > addressed in an
> > > argumentative and combative manner.
> > > I've got no problem if you or he/she or anyone
> > wants to argue the
> > > merits and foibles of history books, in
> specific,
> > or in general. I DO
> > > have a problem when this is couched as a
> > counterargument to my
> > > statement, because it doesn't counter my
> statement
> > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > What we had was this:
> > >
> > > Nate: "Tangerines are not red."
> > >
> > > Dissenter: "Well, neither are all apples red! So
> > how do we really know
> > > which ones are red and which ones aren't? Does
> it
> > matter?
> > > What does it matter if
> > > your apple is red and my tangerine is blue, as
> > long as it inspires me?
> > > And certain tangerines may be of such hues of
> > orange that they may be
> > > very very close to red."
> > >
> > > Simple facts: not everyone can tell that
> > tangerines are not red. Many
> > > tangerines may be so orange they are close to
> > being red, but being red
> > > is not the point of a tangerine. For purposes of
> > this analogy, all
> > > apples SHOULD be red--the fact that many are
> green
> > or brown is a
> > > warning to the partaker that they need to check
> > their apples before
> > > they eat them, but not grounds for saying that
> a.
> > all apples are bad,
> > > or b.
> > > all tangerines are
> > > equally red with apples.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>

=== message truncated ===




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

Boal, Nina wrote:

> Why are you writing to me about another poster? I would address this
> point to the other poster, or cite the other poster directly, rather
> than directing this at me. Because it's getting me confused, as you
> can well see.

Nina, don't you know how these groups work yet? It's all
cross-referenced conversation.

For the record, I'm really surprised at some of the points being brought
up here vis-a-vis history books vs. fiction & film. I thought people
were much more "rational" than that.

Effingham

Curious, which points are these, the ones that you don't see as "rational"?
Has anyone said that fictional works are the same as historical works?

I know I certainly have not said that fictional works are the same as
historical works. Nor have I claimed this. If it seems that I have, then I
apologize for the unclear nature of whatever statements I may have made that
have mistakenly implied this.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Anthony Bryant
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 10:58 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri k

[snips]

For the record, I'm really surprised at some of the points being brought up
here vis-a-vis history books vs. fiction & film. I thought people were much
more "rational" than that.

Effingham



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Bryant
wrote:

>
> Boal, Nina wrote:
>
> > Why are you writing to me about another poster? I would address

this

> > point to the other poster, or cite the other poster directly,

rather

> > than directing this at me. Because it's getting me confused, as

you

> > can well see.
>
> Nina, don't you know how these groups work yet? It's all
> cross-referenced conversation.
>
>

Not only that, but all this top posting has to stop... It drives me
crazy reading a response then having to go down into the email to
figure out what they are responding to.

Let's stop the top posting, OK? Do what Nate and Tony do, post
below each section you are responding to. Thanks.

As the title states, I'm looking for links to online academic papers
published in the field of Japanese history. I've got to do some serious
research into what exactly IS out there before finalizing a choice to
develop for a doctoral thesis. Preferably sengoku jidai. I expect sekigahara
is done to death, but reading the more current analysis' couldn't hurt.

Of course if I could do a comparative analysis of parallels in armour
evolution between Europe and Japan, that would be my first choice.
Unfortunately I don't think that one would fly.

Thanks in advance.

M J Peters

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

I have not seen many of the movies that you guys talk about here and I dont think I will any time soon. But however, fiction has inspired me to read and explore and even hear this arguments out. Because of the two sides here it makes history as a whole I guess that much more real. Hmm. In any event, I lived in Japan for almost 3yrs and tried to visit every musume and castle I could but didnt even know enough Nihongo to know that being a samurai was abolished. Isn't that something? Well most people here that have never been to Japan with out much historical studies get their based on historical facts from anime and various movies? Its what started me out. There is a saying i have read once and dont remember from where it came but it goes like this: To the novice all things seem posible; but to the expert not so much.
We have to start somewhere

Love, Grace, and Peace

"Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:
Curious, which points are these, the ones that you don't see as "rational"?
Has anyone said that fictional works are the same as historical works?

I know I certainly have not said that fictional works are the same as
historical works. Nor have I claimed this. If it seems that I have, then I
apologize for the unclear nature of whatever statements I may have made that
have mistakenly implied this.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Anthony Bryant
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 10:58 AM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: [samuraihistory] R
e: h itokiri k

[snips]

For the record, I'm really surprised at some of the points being brought up
here vis-a-vis history books vs. fiction & film. I thought people were much
more "rational" than that.

Effingham



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/BcOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links







---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



SPONSORED LINKS
Samurai Japan Japan airline

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "samuraihistory" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Peters wrote:

>
> As the title states, I'm looking for links to online academic papers
> published in the field of Japanese history. I've got to do some serious
> research into what exactly IS out there before finalizing a choice to
> develop for a doctoral thesis. Preferably sengoku jidai. I expect
> sekigahara
> is done to death, but reading the more current analysis' couldn't hurt.
>
> Of course if I could do a comparative analysis of parallels in armour
> evolution between Europe and Japan, that would be my first choice.
> Unfortunately I don't think that one would fly.

If you haven't already, look for JSTOR. (<http://www.jstor.com>, I
think). JSTOR keeps online PDFs of the entire contents of HUNDREDS of
journals, including Asian-related ones like Monumenta Nipponica and so
on. Universities usually subscribe to JSTOR, so you should be able to
access the files from your school account. One of the greatest
frustrations I've experienced since leaving IU is that I no longer have
access to JSTOR.

Tony