Journal Entries
-
- 1
- 2
-
Beginnings
Posted Jul 30, 2006
In discussing the History of Japan with my wife, I realised that I could start in two entirely different ways. One more conventional, following the methodologies I came across in studying history at university, the other less conventional, looking at the history of Japan, initially, from the two texts Kojiki and Nihon Shoki. I suppose that it was more out of curiosity than anything else that made me decide this. The idea of starting a history from the point of view of Kojiki and Nihon Shoki seems much more attractive than starting from what would no doubt be seen by modern historians as a more academically rigorous study. A history rooted in Izanaga and Izanami is much more interesting to me - at least as a starting point - than a study of a nation whose land is defined by tectonics and glacial action over the very recent past; or, perhaps, a study of the origin and development of a people who, on the face of it, ARE very different from other peoples.
I will just see where it takes me.
Discuss this Journal entry [2]
Latest reply: Jul 30, 2006
First thoughts
Posted Jul 19, 2006
At the moment I am trying to develop sense of the history of Japan, and something that has struck me very clearly, even at this early stage in my studies, is that you cannot separate the history of the country from its geography and its geology. Many historical events have been significantly shaped by very recent orogenic and glacial events which would normally be ignored in history.
The fact that, over the past few tens of thousands of years Japan has, as a consequence of recent periods of global cooling and warming been linked to - in periods of cooling - and isolated from - in periods of warming - the Asian mainland; and the fact that the Japan is in one of the geologically unstable areas of the world and is subject to regular earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, is very important. Though now an archipelago, it is clear that in it's VERY RECENT geologic past, it was linked to mainland Asia which would, for example, have allowed for the easy migration and settlement of populations. But, we have to see, as we develop our sense of the actual history of the region.
All this, and I haven't even started on what some might call the 'real' history of the country. It just goes to show that my history teachers were right when they observed that history is a very complex subject, that, because it has as its subject matter, human behaviour, institutions and values, is subject to much debate. We have a vast amount of information at our disposal - even if we would choose a narrow subject - and we find that this information is oftentimes complex and apparently contradictory in its nature and character, resulting in our being able - apparently quite legitimately - to create very different histories of the same thing. What I would want to suggest, however, is that it means that we have to set out our stall very clearly as we work, do not just assume that 'facts speak for themselves', and that 'objective reality will always out in the end'. it is our duty to say 'this is where I am coming from, this is what I see, and this is how I interpret it.' I will use this journal, in part to satisfy this need.
Does this mean that any history should always begin with self? In a sense it does. But i do think that it would defeat the purpose of the exercise if you had to work from some kind of historiographical first principles, every time you worked. At the moment, I am working on developing a sense of the background on which canvas we would build up a picture of the development of a general history of Japan.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jul 19, 2006
First Thoughts
Posted Jul 19, 2006
At the moment I am trying to develop sense of the history of Japan, and something that has struck me very clearly, even at this early stage in my studies, is that you cannot separate the history of the country from its geography and its geology. Many historical events have been significantly shaped by very recent orogenic and glacial events which would normally be ignored in history.
The fact that Japan was until very recently connected to the Asian mainland by land bridges to the north and south, which allowed for the relatively easy migration of populations is significant. The fact that the geological stability of Japan is clearly affected by the movement of a number of plates, the Eurasian Plate to the west, the Philippine Plate to the south, the North American Plate to the north and east and the Pacific Plate to the east has meant that, Japan is regularly affected by earthquakes and volcanoes.
All this, and I haven't even started on what some might call the 'real' history of the country. It just goes to show that my history teachers were right when they observed that history is a very complex subject, that, because it has as its subject matter, human behaviour, institutions and values, is subject to much debate. We have a vast amount of information at our disposal - even if we would choose a narrow subject - and we find that this information is oftentimes complex and apparently contradictory in its nature and character, resulting in our being able - apparently quite legitimately - to create very different histories of the same thing. What I would want to suggest, however, is that it means that we have to set out our stall very clearly as we work, do not just assume that 'facts speak for themselves', and that 'objective reality will always out in the end'. it is our duty to say 'this is where I am coming from, this is what I see, and this is how I interpret it.' I will use this journal, in part to satisfy this need.
Does this mean that any history should always begin with self? In a sense it does. But i do think that it would defeat the purpose of the exercise if you had to work from some kind of historiographical first principles, every time you worked. At the moment, I am working on developing a sense of the background on which canvas we would build up a picture of the development of a general history of Japan.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jul 19, 2006
-
- 1
- 2
-
The Researcher
Researcher U4571901
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."