Asia's Response to Western Imperialism - Essay Example

Four Main Components of Emotional Intelligence Course: Date: The Responses of Japan, China, and India to Western Imperialism Introduction Western imperialism is thought to have contributed, to large extend, the destruction of affected countries. Imperialism has been associated with oppression and war. The paper will shed light on the concept of western imperialism to the three countries and provide insights on how they responded. According to Brenner (2007), imperialism is a strategy of extending a state’s power and authority through international relations such as diplomacy or armed forces based on supremacy notions and applications of domination. Imperialism is inhuman on the grounds that practices of mistreatment are imposed on the indigenous people. The essay will compare and contrast the responses of Japan, China, and India to Western Imperialism. There branches of imperialism comprise of regressive imperialism engages explicit exploitation, and extermination or annihilation of the natives, for instance Nazi’s Germany (Friedländer and Kenan, 2009). Progressive imperialism is a positive concept that embraces humanity and encourages the multiplication of civilization to promote culture and livelihood standards for the world which is backward. The British and Roman kingdoms imposed progressive Imperialism. Countries such as Japan, India, and China experienced progressive imperialism. Imperialism was linked to Western countries during the 19th and 20th century.  Japan’s response to western imperialism, as compared to China and India, was characterized by rebellion, as they acted decisively (Mishra, 2012). They introduced contemporary science and technology so as to transform the traditional culture on a basis of industrialization under the guidance of a modern nation-state. Meanwhile, China and other Asian countries such as India were suffering. The reason was that in Japan, there was surfacing of a new influential leaders with the ability to face practically the situation and tackling them. They recognized their interests with the reason of modernization, and to acted before the chance was lost. China had better natural resources compared to Japan with a large vast of land needed for industrialization. A foremost contrast manifested whereby the feudal custom of Japan endangered to impose severe handicaps, alongside the benefits it bestowed. This consequently delayed liberation. Smitka (2012) reiterates that in natural resources, Japan would have appeared at a serious limitation in the fight for independence. Japan was smaller than china, with one-tenth the size. Japan was overpopulated in comparison to china and India and also had small mineral resources except in energy resources and copper. The potential of Japan was greatly hampered by lack of enough mineral resources as opposed to China and India. Japan and china had another limitation, as it was secluded from civilization as opposed to India which was strategically located along the pathways of international trade. India had comparatively easy access to the latest Western expertise and technology (Metcalf, 2007). In contrast, both Japan and China were isolated latecomers to the industrialized and political revolutions of contemporary times. During the imperialism period in Japan, there were vibrant and resolute changes that took place in Meiji Japan. On the other side, china had its efforts to prevent disintegration of their society under Western rule abated. Additionally, Japan endorsed a system of governance that facilitated democracy, independence and humanism in its culture, depicting itself as one of the most established regimes without the confines of western territories (Wittner, 2007). China, on the contrary, had a totalitarian regime, hampering the country’s transition to industrialization. Another difference between Japan and China noticeable is that the Japanese government, was further pluralistic in its organization. This government was centralized and bureaucratic (Murdoch, 2004). China’s efforts to borrow this system of governance from Japan during the seventh and eighth centuries failed spectacularly. China’s borrowed system fostered unity, but it was not able to overbear in application of the clan beliefs of the Japanese, the local particularism, persistent as it was which was because of the rugged mountainous topography. Consequences of the particularism could result in sectional disorders resulting to anarchy. Similarly, India experienced such a monarchy in the course of almost her whole history, for instance during the century prior to the British invasion. Japans leadership evolved into a less centralized government yet less decentralized than china. Other facets of the pluralism were the virtual autonomy of the Buddhist clergy as a sacred elite until Nobunaga (I534- I582) shattered their worldly power; also the separate personality of the business elite of the Tokugawa age, the growing town and country traders. (Totman, 2014) illustrated that the business class, being debarred from direct entrance into the family feudal aristocracy, had to utilize efficiently business as the way to affluence and power. Another factor that differentiated development of China and Japan was the historical timing of the Western challenge in the past century. The Western invaders found Japan, China and India administrations heading into internal predicament. Japan’s Manchu dynasty and the Tokugawa Shogunate were each declining after two centuries or more of ruling (Morton and Olenik, 2005). Conversely, only in Japan were the regional disorders potentially radical. The main significant difference is that Japan had already produced aspirations and dissatisfactions of such a nature that authoritative rudiments of the ruling class now excitedly embraced the cause of Westernization, even if it meant conquering the feudal order. Thus the distinguishing rigidities of culture-bound communities were weakened in Japan by the actuality that change was pleasing to factions of the elite to command, affluence and authority. There were situations in China when this could have possibly have happened, given an external incentive of equivalent strength. The southern Sung regime (II27-I279) proposed itself, with its business and technical advancement and its pragmatic science (Eberhard, 2013).  However, in the 19th century, China in its internal development was going through familiar signs of dynastic decomposition along conventional lines. Similarly, in a relatively diverse setting, the decline of Mogul rule in India after Aurangzeb was the same time Western powers evaded. On the other hand, Japan was by now in action in an institutional regard, and hence the Japanese were more open to new culture from western imperialism. Japan had for a long time developed new structures of power in preparation for change. The primary chains emanated from the oppressive shogunate. Now all types of rebels joined hands to abolish the feudal regime in i867. China had a similar mixed alliances of Chinese factions overthrow the Manchu dynasty 45 years afterwards (Schoppa, 2011). This was referred to as the Republican Revolution of 1911. In Japan, though, the rule did not disband in warlord revolution, as in China where it happened after Yuan Shih- Kai’s death in 1916. Power was captured and merged in the Throne by an unusual faction of minor samurai, joined by essentials of the court graciousness, city businessmen, and elites. Collectively they destroyed the structure of Western imperialism and laid the basics of a fresh order . China and Japan had the Japanese samurai and the Chinese elite similar after 1868. Several samurai were as static and doctrinaire as the distinctive Chinese mandarin in the facade of the Western confrontation. As a group they were inactive, uninformed and proud. Cassel (2012) points out the indispensable difference was that there rose within the Japanese elite extensive unusual elements with a new dream and ability to steer the country to a new course. The utmost challenge in modernization usually lie in adjusting traditional formation of group organization to contemporary needs. Japan, yet, quickly managed to develop large-scale firms which were able to function with more efficiency in various areas such as banking, education and manufacturing sectors. The reasons why Japan transformed quickly are mainly because of social unity, nationally. Additionally Japanese were patriotic embracing nationalism. Fairbank and Goldman (2006) state that China, on the contrary, experienced constant episode of civil wars, and this hampered the efforts to overthrow western powers. Japan also had a fundamental advantage over china in protecting her political sovereignty and building the fundamentals of a national policy and economy. It is unthinkable that a European intruder could have defeated her with considerable assistance from indigenous troops, as transpired in India. In china, it did not occur either apart from the civil unrests that it experienced. And it was their unique calamity that an foreign dynasty had the Dragon throne when the Western imperialists came (Levathes, 2014). As political patriotism started slowly to self-declare it had to be used to bring down the Chinese government, in the Peking capital just when power and action were mandatory at the center. Almost from the onset the Japanese were able to carry on within a structure of centralized resolutions made by their leaders and applied country-wide. Japan also had the ability to develop other more definite varieties of group organization for the purposes of modernization. China and India however, had a difficulty in developing different group organizations such as public school structures and banks. This is attributed to the fact that in china, family spirit overshadowed group responsibility while in Japan it was the opposite. Therefore, Japanese thrived rather quickly in developing coherent, bureaucratic organizations which functioned reasonably efficiently for the functions at hand (Miller, 2004). Japans response to the Western imperialism was reinforced by tendencies for social groups which facilitated a leadership, technically progressive in point of view, to foster transformation in an systematic, increasing fashion. Initiative at the top soon began to draw a broadening response from the natives, as awareness and prospects grew. With the new autonomy came a new character of enterprise. This was encouraged in all perspectives of life where it did not directly confront the basic ambitions of the country’s leaders or their organization of political supremacy and economic dispensation (Mäki, 2009). The Japanese brought to the predicament of organization not only a custom of hierarchical order, which is more or less important the operation of large social organizations nowadays, but also a growing variety of aspirations and position, and an excellence of voluntarism or fashionable approval, which are similarly imperative if a society is to endeavor and develop. How Decolonization Came About Cain and Hopkins (2014) argue that the main purpose of British imperialism in China in the 19th century was economic. In 1901, the Chinese anti-foreign uprising rebelled against imperialism and as a result in 912, the Qing Empire collapsed for the establishment of Republic of China. In India, the year 1857 is when Indian population revolted against the British colonialism that had oppressed their natives for more than 200 years. India eventually gained independence in 1947. In japan, Emperor Jimmu claimed the throne in 660 B.C. Japan was under the rule of Allied Armies in the Second World War. American Colonization Society granted Japan independence in 1847. Style, Ideology & Strategy that led to Opposition Movement, Eventually Leading to National Independence India’s strategy to oust the British rule was largely based on diplomacy (Travers, 2007). The British left India when Indians wanted them to leave and also because of the dealings of key individuals. The British were not only ejected through peaceful political protests, they were also forced out by armed rebellion. The British also wanted to leave because they acknowledged the fact that India was ready to self-govern. China’s strategy to topple western imperialism employed negotiations such as in the Tientsin Treaties, as well as armed resistance such as in the Boxer Rebellion of (1898-1901) (Harrington, 2013). Japan’s strategy was mainly characterized by resistance. For instance, the Japanese society like farmers identified themselves with the legacy of resistance, which dated back to the Tokugawa era (1600-1867) when there were uprising against the government of the shogun. All the three countries are similar in tackling imperialism. The only difference is the efficiency, where Japan was more efficient. Conclusion Western Imperialism in Asia was mainly due to economic motives. The Asian countries namely, Japan, China and India had different responses to western imperialism. China and India were under the British imperialism, while Japan was under the American rule. Although imperialism caused numerous problems to the natives as regards to loss of life, imperialism was progressive mainly in Japan where it contributed to economic growth and development. Japan, after having the impacts of imperialism, developed a goal to be the superpower among the East Asian countries. The three countries had different approaches in engaging the west, while India mainly used diplomacy especially negotiations, china and Japan mainly resisted through armed rebellions. However, Japan executed its resistance via the elite, carefully taking into consideration the economy of the country so as to experience societal transformation. Japan also responded by embracing imperialism in some extend. China, on the other hand had a lot of civil wars, which greatly hampered development. References Brenner, R. (2007). What is, and what is not, imperialism?. Historical Materialism, 14(4), 79. Cain, P. J., & Hopkins, A. G. (2014). British Imperialism: 1688-2000. Routledge. Cassel, K. (2012). Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan. Oxford University Press. Eberhard, W. (2013). A history of China. Routledge. Fairbank, J. K., & Goldman, M. (2006). China: A new history. Harvard University Press. Friedländer, S., & Kenan, O. (2009). Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1933-1945. Harper Perennial. Harrington, P. (2013). Peking 1900: the Boxer rebellion (Vol. 85). Osprey publishing. Levathes, L. (2014). When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405–1433. Open Road Media. Mäki, U. (2009). Economics imperialism concept and constraints. Philosophy of the social sciences, 39(3), 351-380. Metcalf, T. R. (2007). Imperial Connections: India in the Indian Ocean Arena, 1860-1920 (Vol. 4). Univ of California Press. Miller, J. H. (2004). The Reluctant Asianist: Japan and Asia. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 31(2), 69-85. Mishra, P. (2012). From the ruins of empire: the revolt against the West and the remaking of Asia. Penguin UK. Morton, W. S., & Olenik, J. K. (2005). Japan: Its History and Culture. McGraw-Hill. Murdoch, J. (2004). A history of Japan (Vol. 3). Psychology Press. Schoppa, R. K. (2011). Revolution and its past: Identities and change in modern Chinese history. Prentice hall. Smitka, M. (Ed.). (2012). The Japanese economy in the Tokugawa era, 1600-1868. Routledge. Totman, C. (2014). A history of Japan. John Wiley & Sons. Travers, R. (2007). Ideology and empire in eighteenth-century India: the British in Bengal (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press. Wittner, D. G. (2007). Technology and the culture of progress in Meiji Japan. Routledge. Read More