The central theme of the assigned readings this week primarily concern Japan’s rise as an imperialist global power, with a specific focus on its dynamic relationship to other countries for both Asia and Western nations. The first reading by Iriye opened with an exploration into Japan’s strategy toward expansion; the Japanese adopted an amalgamation of Western technologies and the ingenuity of its own people to perpetuate imperialism onto her Asian neighbors. Japan sent scholars and diplomats to observe the most modern developments in Western nations, bringing back blueprints of different systems and technologies to be built in the mainland. For instance, the Japanese replicated German and French models of transportation– which allowed them to develop sophisticated railway systems. Moreover, Japan attempted to establish different “spheres of influence” in other Asian countries to become one of the major stakeholders in “the game of power politics in the world area” (11, Iriye). Thus, it was interesting to see Japanese imperialism take on a form where there is the physical integration of Asian countries, in addition to the ideological, cultural, and technological incorporation of Western elements. 

Higuchi further expounds upon the imperial expansion of the Japanese empire, and its shifting dynamics with other global forces through an agricultural lens. He characterizes Japan as an ‘organic’ empire that imported fish meal and soybean cake “from northern territories and spheres of influence” (142, Higuchi). This caused its commercial nitrogen fertilizers to remain predominantly plant and animal based until the early 19th century. The heavy exportation of Hokkaido’s herring fish and Manchuria’s soybean cake into mainland Japan implies that the imperial core aggressively exploited its peripheral regions– not only for minerals and fossil fuel, but also for plant and animal based products such as food, fiber, and fertilizer. Japan’s reliance on organic materials stands in stark contrast to the West, which uses only 2% of commercial nitrogen fertilizers that come from vegetable and animal sources– compared to 70% used in Japan (146, Higuchi). The nitrogen extraction from herring and soybean is a paragon illustration of how the Japanese followed western practices en suite, and were able to transform it into something entirely of their own making.

However, Japan’s unforeseen rise to becoming a formidable contender on the world’s political-economic platform also came with unprecedented complications– as discussed in Cumings and Shigenobu’s pieces. Even though the US was eager to keep Japan as a trade partner in the cooperative trilateral policy, they also viewed Japan as a threat due to its status as a rising global power. Determined to remain the central hegemonic power, the US set forth a series of orders against Japan in an attempt to stump the country’s new progress. Such restrictions included Nixon’s New Economic Policy in 1971, Japanese immigration ban laws, and ultimately the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The purpose of such stipulations was so that the US could continue to unilaterally influence and manage the world’s economy, with other Western nations following closely in favor. According to Cumings, “Japan’s problem was that it had upset the balance of the world system,” as the only Asian country who was able to break into the Western dominated game of imperial conquest– threatening to supersede the original players at an alarming rate. Thus, Western powers attempted to keep the Japanese and other Asian forces ‘in their place’ through a variety of means, including economic control, political intimidation, racism, and more. This was further reinforced by Shigenobu’s personal account of racist treatment from Westerners. Shigenobu calls for universal equality, and yet claims that the “white are obsessed with the mistaken theory that they are superior to all other races” (1, Shigenobu). The author laments the unfair treatment from Westerners towards Asiatic races, with terms such as the ‘yellow peril’ being used to describe Asians. Sanctimoniously, Shigenobu criticizes the US and modern Europe for utilizing slaves, but what is hypocritical about his account can be seen in imperial Japan’s brutal treatment towards its subjects. Racism was employed by the West as an instrument to control Japan’s role in the hierarchy of imperialist nations, and also reinforce their inferiority compared to the superiority of whites.

(665 words)

The overarching purpose that Burbank and Cooper expound upon in both texts examines how political bodies are shaped across time, while taking into account a variety of sovereign frameworks, ruling strategies, political-cultural ideologies, and national identity/affiliations that both colonizers and the colonized groups belong to. One of the major themes that Burbank and Cooper underscore is the role that homogeneity plays in establishing an empire versus a nation-state. The two readings also stress another important concept, namely that the transition from an empire into a nation-state is not linear or sustainable. Both historians argue that this is justified by the longevity of empires and the development of sophisticated societies under its rule. This renders our conception of the modern nation-state as an necessary aftermath to other forms of government to be somewhat expendable. Both themes hold critical implications for history, where I focus on discussing the former in this response.

A critical idea that Burbank and Cooper highlights is the issue of homogeneity in the incorporation of diverse pockets of people, used when distinguishing between an empire versus nation-state. An empire is an extensive political unit that is often composed of an aggregate of many territories brought under by supreme power. Nation-states, in contrast, is a sovereign polity that underscores the commonality of its majority community, often by increasing nationalist sentiment at the exclusion of minority populations and marginalized groups. Burbank contends “both kinds of states are incorporative– they insist that people be ruled by their institutions– but the nation-state tends to homogenize those inside its borders and exclude those who do not belong, while the empire reaches outward and draws, usually coercively, peoples whose difference is made explicit under its rule” (25, Burbank). Empires often self-consciously maintain the diversity of people that they conquer when incorporating them into an existing colony, and govern different people according to different customs within the polity. For instance, the Mongols normalized the multiplicity of people and their varied customs as a useful asset by employing Buddhist, Confucianist, Christian, Daoist, and Islamic administrators. Thus, the imperial strategy that the Mongols leveraged allowed the empire to shelter diverse religions and inflect its repertoires of power across the world. Burbank & Cooper posit “all empires were to some degree reliant on both incorporation and differentiation,” where they could integrate, build upon, or pioneer new ways of authoritative rule/political governance (30, Burbank). Conversely, the empire is more incorporative in that it declares the non-equivalence of multiple populations and emphasizes multicultural differences amongst people that exist within a nation.

On the contrary, nation-states attempt to draw strict boundaries between “undifferentiated insiders and ‘barbarian’ outsiders" (29, Burbank). For example, the Roman empire attempted to establish a highly homogenous civilization by constructing a unified religious community founded on the worship of Roman gods and goddesses, and later under Christianity. Another way that the Romans fostered homogenization is by developing distinct artistic styles through architecture, fine arts (sculptures & paintings), literature, scholarship and other pedagogical practices. Moreover, the Roman empire encouraged homogeneity amongst its civilians by underscoring democratic rule and legal citizenship rights, c creating a sense of agency that were only extended to men. Women, slaves,  barbarians, and other minorities outside of the main homogenous body were barred from political participation. The dangers of nationally homogeneous nation-states and polities is the possibility for tyranny to take place, which can result in political upheaval threatening to overthrow the regime.

A theme I want to investigate in the future is progress: in an economic-academic, ethical, and backward sense. The ability for empires to promulgate wide-sweeping political and economic transformations, propelling a nation to the global stage, to trade with other major players and global actors, and set into motion through competition. Technological innovations and scientific developments, such as European weaponry that allowed them to quickly access the Chinese and Persian Empire in addition to exploring ‘undiscovered’ territory such as the North Americas. Ethicality and the morality of personhood (status). Conversely, I would like to understand how weaknesses in imperial rule can lead to exploitation by foreign powers, such as China’s Opium Wars that lead to the fall of the great Qing Dynasty. Lapse into the indentured fetters of European powers. 

(694 words)