If you haven't been already, the Imperial Gardens in Tokyo are very much worth a visit. I don't think I've ever been in an area that just felt so sacred. If mahogany green was ever a thing, that's what the colors of those trees were. And bonsais that were several hundred years old. Personally, I don't even think Kyoto gives the same vibe. It's amazing.
I agree and three other spectacular locations leap to mind: the Imperial Palace in Kyoto, Kenrokuen in Kanazawa, and the most spectacular of all — Ise Jingū.
Taiwan: watching the sun set over Kaohsiung Harbor from this old fort on a mountain. Pretty magical.
South Korea: Climbing Hallasan volcano on Jeju Island. Really neat.
China: Exploring Suzhou/Hangzhou old towns. Suzhou is like the Venice of China.
All these places warrant a trip in and of themselves; but they didn’t feel holy to me if that makes any sense. Imperial Gardens felt different, like one thread of contiguous history, unrent by tragedy and upheaval, touching you on the face.
Well at least you can't accuse them of false advertising. Israel seems like one of those places where it's either a magical place or a complete disappointment. I've heard some say it's the best place they've ever visited and others say it is a complete letdown. I suppose it depends on how religious you are.
I identify strongly as a Jew, but I'm not very religious. I've visited Israel three times and enjoyed every visit. Jerusalem is an amazing city. I just had trouble finding holiness at the Western Wall. I think, for myself, I either need more quiet and solitude, or conversely, to be involved in group prayer. But I don't pray much and I'm not very practiced at it. I'm also an atheist, so prayer for me is a bit hard to explain.
Anyway, for me, the wall itself didn't evoke anything. I think there was just too much commotion with everyone doing mostly their own thing. I did enjoy watching everyone else experiencing the place, though.
If nothing else, there's a few thousand years of history there to see.
I seem to remember there was something a while back about what the next Japanese era would be named. Is it normal for them to prepare for that so that they're not scrabbling to find a new one when the emperor dies, or was there a general awareness that Akihito would be abdicating in the near future?
As covered in the article, he announced his intentions a few years ago. This is the first transfer of the throne in the digital era, so there was understandably quite a bit more consternation around the naming issues -- I imagine in the past, naming the new era when the new emperor ascended wasn't a big deal for anyone outside perhaps the stationery industry.
He announced back in late 2017 that he was abdicating. It's normal for the new era's name to be a bit of a secret, it just hasn't happened since 1989, so it's not normal for it to matter that computers need to be updated with the new name.
This was a preplanned abdication, so there was a lot of planning involved. For example, Unicode reserved the era name code point, but couldn't actually announce the code point because it wasn't announced until April 1. Similarly, people who have to support the Japanese calendar (such as Microsoft) had dry runs to plan for the name change with placeholders so they could update quickly.
This is the first time that the era has changed when computers were in widespread use, so there already had to be changes from the traditional "we're not going to announce the new era until it starts" (much to the chagrin of the ultra-nationalists).
I'll admit a lot of ignorance on this; what does the Emperor of Japan actually do now? Japan has a prime minister position, doesn't it? Is the Emperor a figurehead or do they have power?
I mean he basically begged to be fired, so it’s probably not all that much fun. They sacrifice any semblance of normalcy and have an endless calendar of ceremonies and events. Emperor Akihito acquitted himself pretty well in the job, and most people in Japan seem to be either indifferent to the royals or appreciate their focus on peace and calm and continuity. They’re a pretty boring royal family, which means they’re doing a good job I think.
One of the particular difficulties of the Japanese royal family is you have the ultra-nationalists who never really got over Japan's loss in WW2 and the resulting changes to the Japanese royal nature, but the royalty has. You end up with a situation where the emperor indicates that he wants the nature of the royal family to change slightly, but the biggest supporters of royalty don't want to listen to him.
This is rather different compared to the constitutional monarchies that are common in Europe: it's hard to imagine any major political party (even the hard-right parties) arguing against the monarch if the monarch is suggesting a more liberal position.
Well, Abe and LDP are generally all the way in on Nippon Kaigi and they supported his abdication. The first news I heard of it was Abe’s appeal to the nation to allow the Emperor to step down.
They had no choice but to support it. The emperor is incredibly popular in Japan. In fact, the abdication threw a spanner in the works for Abe and the LDP wrt the constitutional changes hey wanted for allowing Japan to get involved in external conflicts if its allies are involved.
For some history, this is the second time Abe has been prime minister. The first time he had to resign. This was directly after proposing the constitutional change. Now, Wikipedia (and the western media it seems) reported that Abe resigned due to the poor performance of his economic policies. However, at the time my impression was that he resigned over the backlash to the constitutional proposals. At the time my Japanese wasn't very good, so I could definitely have gotten it wrong, but that was certainly what I understood.
Fast forward to a few years ago. Abe got back into power, instituted his Abenomics and then re-proposed the constitutional changes. It seemed like it was inevitable because they had enough time to push through the changes and write the constitutional law before the next general election. And then out of the blue the emperor announced, "I want to retire. Please implement the constitutional changes that would allow me to do so". These changes, perhaps not incidentally, meant that Abe could not draft his changes until after the next general election.
It has been suggested (by the NHK no less -- unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it, but that's where I heard of the notion) that this was an intentional move by the emperor. Who knows... However it is true that he has been suffering from poor health and has not been able to perform all of his duties.
Anyway, the general election was held and Abe and the LDP survived, so presumably they will go ahead with their plans. However, the latest I've seen is that there is still considerable opposition in the populace (with over 50% of the population opposing any changes to the constitution). The last I heard Abe has said that he might not go forward with it.
They are under increasing pressure from the US, though. Also, Japan has wanted the US out of Okinawa for a long time, with the US always promising that they will leave as soon as their base in Guam is complete (which never seems to happen). I don't think the US will ever leave Okinawa without Japan being able to take military action the in the sea of Japan because otherwise China will pretty much have free reign there. At the moment, all Japan can do is show up with the coast guard and say "Please leave. Pretty please".
My maybe-controversial view is that peace and the removal of the US protection racket are consistent aims, and the constitutional changes are not necessarily a precursor to Japanese aggression. Still, regular people in Japan seem to be mostly completely checked out of their own politics, so this is a game played among professional politicians and some business leaders.
There is a strong argument I heard, in Japan, that, “everyone should be free to chose their lives, free of a monarch; and that includes the emperor’s family.” Essentially, the emperor is the last unfree person. They must live trapped in their little castle. They must speak differently than all other people. They must not interact with people of their choosing.
It could be worse; in the Heian period the Emperor's job was performing religious rituals basically constantly, and it was widely recognized as so exhausting that emperors generally ruled for about a decade and then retired.
(This led to a small group of retired emperors, called the 'cloistered emperors', who were nominally Buddhist monks and ordinary citizens but in fact did much of the actual work of ruling the country, since the actual emperor was too busy with religious duties to exert much political power)
That is the secret ingredient to being a good monarch: be absolutely boring and try to not upset anyone.
The system in my country is that until you take the throne you get a relatively normal life. Hell doesn't start until you're at least 40.
The Royal family has 400 years of experience so they're used to it. Relatively few ran away or killed themselves. Although a few did go nuts. They know it has to be done.
It's a role that's exclusively ceremonial. While the Emperor participates in government, it's to do things like appoint a PM and other officials (but the Emperor is compelled to appoint those selected by the legislature), officiate opening/closing type ceremonies, issue honors/awards, participate in soft diplomatic relations, etc. So in a way, the role has some small degree of 'power', but it's 'on rails' so to speak, and in theory doesn't directly impact policymaking or governance.
That's sad. In my observation of governments, if they do not have a single strong leader at the very top who answers to no one but serves everyone, then those who do govern will be so scattered in their plans and opinions that the government will be rendered almost completely ineffective at fulfilling its primary duties. A single strong leader at the top is needed, someone with courage and a strong resolve, and a clear vision of what's best for his country. It may be said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but not if the man believes in and is led by absolute truth, such as was King Louis of France.
Sure, a benevolent, supremely intelligent and incorruptible dictator would be the best leader for any country.
But governments should be about stability, resilience and steady progress, and not optimizing for superb efficiency at the cost of being extremely unstable.
Edit:
Also to be clear, the dictator in question would be a fairy tale person. As such we could add a requirement for dragons, that would be cool.
>In my observation of governments, if they do not have a single strong leader at the very top who answers to no one but serves everyone, then those who do govern will be so scattered in their plans and opinions that the government will be rendered almost completely ineffective at fulfilling its primary duties.
Nearly every extant democracy, even those with constitutional monarchs, is a strong counterpoint to your claim.
>It may be said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but not if the man believes in and is led by absolute truth
The problem with the 'philosopher king' is that it's a Platonic ideal, and never really present in reality.
China had that approach. If they had a good emperor, it worked reasonably well (at least in terms of national stability). But they never solved the "bad emperor" problem.
And that's still the problem. If you get the one perfect person - and if they remain the perfect person - then your approach works. But people who are good enough, and will remain good enough, are in really short supply, so the odds are stacked against your approach.
And if you have a bad person, an unwise person, a selfish person, or a lazy person, your approach is catastrophic. So the rest of us don't want to go there...
The trouble is that even a wise and capable ruler sometimes picks a terrible successor. The most obvious example is the succession of Commodus after Aurelius —- Marcus was and is a widely read philosopher and admired leader, but his idiot son drove Rome into the ground.
The Yamato dynasty in Japan is the longest-lived political system on record, period. Historically, many emperors left governing to their subordinates; in some cases, there were even civil wars, but their longevity suggests an advantage to this approach.
Probably Louis XIV, who was infamous for his role in the centralization of power in France. It's he to whom the statement "L'etat, c'est moi" is attributed.
Side note for all the "Louis" of France: Louis XIV was succeeded by his great-grandson Louis XV, having outlived both his son Louis and his grandson Louis. It seems Henry IV's descendants had a penchant for naming everybody in line to the throne as Louis.
That's his shining example? The believer in "divine right", who led France into a bunch of wars for his own glory and thereby got a bunch of his people killed? That's his example of a leader following "absolute truth"? Sheesh.
I'm not suggesting a monarchy is the best way to get such a ruler, in fact it seems problematic for that exact reason. I'm just an uneducated fool with limited opinions on government, but I think if we elected something like a President but with much more power like a king, and if the people who elected him understood virtue correctly, and if the election process was made much more fair, and if nations governed smaller (more manageable) amounts of people than the USA does, and if corporations were given significantly less say in the direction of the government (to shut all those awfully abused loopholes), the world would be on a good path.
> It may be said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but not if the man believes in and is led by absolute truth, such as was King Louis of France.
I'd love to hear about this so-called "absolute truth" you have in mind, because I've seen people in power claim their opinions are the truth in order to get what they want at the expense of other people or resources.
Truly the end of an era. Akihito became emperor in 1989. At that time it seemed humanity was finally ready to put great power conflicts in the past. Akihito represented a generation that had experienced the horrors of WWII as children and saw the need to make sure that never happened again.
Now as Akihito abdicates, the whispers of great power conflicts are starting again. Old alliances and coalitions that have kept the peace for 70 years are being questioned. Nationalism is rising throughout the world. I hope the new Emperor’s reign will be just as peaceful as his father’s, but I am pessimistic.
I think they are tied together. China and the US are the two biggest world powers. Any conflict between them would draw Japan in. Japan also has rivalries with China and North Korea. Any conflict between Japan and one or more of those would draw the US in.
If the there is a conflict in the eastern Pacific, Australia would like join in as well. It is also highly likely that the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland will likely join as well and possibly Germany and France.
I mean if you're considering his reign a "peaceful time" you're missing all the things that have happened in Africa, the Middle Ease, or Latin America. I think we just have different definitions of "peace" here. Sure, nobody is dropping nukes or waging a world war, but there's still been constant conflicts somewhere.
I think Fukuyama's "End of History..." died a while ago. Actually, it probably never existed and was simply idealized wishful thinking. As they say, there can be no peace without war.
What's strange is that we know peace eventually ends. But I also can't see how we can have a war amongst nuclear powers. Could we have a peaceful war? Is it possible? Is that what the cold war was?
With the creation of the EU, rising china, resurgence russia, india, ASEAN, africa ( eventually ), the geopolitical landscape is going to change. From a historical, economical and demographic perspective, the geopolitical center should move somewhere in europe or asia from the US eventually. There are 1 billion more chinese. One billion more indians. 500 million more europeans. It is a strange quirk of history that the US is the leader of the world.
> I also can't see how we can have a war amongst nuclear powers. Could we have a peaceful war? Is it possible? Is that what the cold war was?
I'd say the answer is "Look at Syria", proxy wars etc are the current best method for engaging without actually having to fight directly (which just ends super badly as it almost inevitably escalates)
What's really interesting is the selected motto for the new era. On the surface it appears to resemble "continued peace" but careful readers of Japanese understand it had a complete different meaning. It more closely means "ordered" "compliance", as in an order is given and your compliance will keep the peace. Strange times.
60 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadFish walking with legs like humans See the video on link below http://bit.ly/2XRGyYD
This couple is different Girls are both twins and boys are also twin brothers see how they look in video http://bit.ly/2VwoZQd
A cute dog is dancing in video Just watch this video and try to control your laugh http://bit.ly/2ZK1XVs
South Korea: Climbing Hallasan volcano on Jeju Island. Really neat.
China: Exploring Suzhou/Hangzhou old towns. Suzhou is like the Venice of China.
All these places warrant a trip in and of themselves; but they didn’t feel holy to me if that makes any sense. Imperial Gardens felt different, like one thread of contiguous history, unrent by tragedy and upheaval, touching you on the face.
Anyway, for me, the wall itself didn't evoke anything. I think there was just too much commotion with everyone doing mostly their own thing. I did enjoy watching everyone else experiencing the place, though.
If nothing else, there's a few thousand years of history there to see.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36784045
This is the first time that the era has changed when computers were in widespread use, so there already had to be changes from the traditional "we're not going to announce the new era until it starts" (much to the chagrin of the ultra-nationalists).
> While the emperor holds no political power, he serves as a national figurehead.
This is rather different compared to the constitutional monarchies that are common in Europe: it's hard to imagine any major political party (even the hard-right parties) arguing against the monarch if the monarch is suggesting a more liberal position.
For some history, this is the second time Abe has been prime minister. The first time he had to resign. This was directly after proposing the constitutional change. Now, Wikipedia (and the western media it seems) reported that Abe resigned due to the poor performance of his economic policies. However, at the time my impression was that he resigned over the backlash to the constitutional proposals. At the time my Japanese wasn't very good, so I could definitely have gotten it wrong, but that was certainly what I understood.
Fast forward to a few years ago. Abe got back into power, instituted his Abenomics and then re-proposed the constitutional changes. It seemed like it was inevitable because they had enough time to push through the changes and write the constitutional law before the next general election. And then out of the blue the emperor announced, "I want to retire. Please implement the constitutional changes that would allow me to do so". These changes, perhaps not incidentally, meant that Abe could not draft his changes until after the next general election.
It has been suggested (by the NHK no less -- unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it, but that's where I heard of the notion) that this was an intentional move by the emperor. Who knows... However it is true that he has been suffering from poor health and has not been able to perform all of his duties.
Anyway, the general election was held and Abe and the LDP survived, so presumably they will go ahead with their plans. However, the latest I've seen is that there is still considerable opposition in the populace (with over 50% of the population opposing any changes to the constitution). The last I heard Abe has said that he might not go forward with it.
They are under increasing pressure from the US, though. Also, Japan has wanted the US out of Okinawa for a long time, with the US always promising that they will leave as soon as their base in Guam is complete (which never seems to happen). I don't think the US will ever leave Okinawa without Japan being able to take military action the in the sea of Japan because otherwise China will pretty much have free reign there. At the moment, all Japan can do is show up with the coast guard and say "Please leave. Pretty please".
A curious point.
(This led to a small group of retired emperors, called the 'cloistered emperors', who were nominally Buddhist monks and ordinary citizens but in fact did much of the actual work of ruling the country, since the actual emperor was too busy with religious duties to exert much political power)
The system in my country is that until you take the throne you get a relatively normal life. Hell doesn't start until you're at least 40. The Royal family has 400 years of experience so they're used to it. Relatively few ran away or killed themselves. Although a few did go nuts. They know it has to be done.
But governments should be about stability, resilience and steady progress, and not optimizing for superb efficiency at the cost of being extremely unstable.
Edit: Also to be clear, the dictator in question would be a fairy tale person. As such we could add a requirement for dragons, that would be cool.
Nearly every extant democracy, even those with constitutional monarchs, is a strong counterpoint to your claim.
>It may be said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but not if the man believes in and is led by absolute truth
The problem with the 'philosopher king' is that it's a Platonic ideal, and never really present in reality.
And that's still the problem. If you get the one perfect person - and if they remain the perfect person - then your approach works. But people who are good enough, and will remain good enough, are in really short supply, so the odds are stacked against your approach.
And if you have a bad person, an unwise person, a selfish person, or a lazy person, your approach is catastrophic. So the rest of us don't want to go there...
The Yamato dynasty in Japan is the longest-lived political system on record, period. Historically, many emperors left governing to their subordinates; in some cases, there were even civil wars, but their longevity suggests an advantage to this approach.
Which one? Because there's 17 of them. (I count 17 kings of France named Louis, since Louis 17 never reigned or anything)
Side note for all the "Louis" of France: Louis XIV was succeeded by his great-grandson Louis XV, having outlived both his son Louis and his grandson Louis. It seems Henry IV's descendants had a penchant for naming everybody in line to the throne as Louis.
For his own sake, I sure hope he was trolling.
But even if you accept Louis IX as the perfect ruler, what do you do once he dies? What do you do when you get Louis XIV?
This is a dangerous double blade. Such leader can make or break a country all by himself.
I'd love to hear about this so-called "absolute truth" you have in mind, because I've seen people in power claim their opinions are the truth in order to get what they want at the expense of other people or resources.
Now as Akihito abdicates, the whispers of great power conflicts are starting again. Old alliances and coalitions that have kept the peace for 70 years are being questioned. Nationalism is rising throughout the world. I hope the new Emperor’s reign will be just as peaceful as his father’s, but I am pessimistic.
If the there is a conflict in the eastern Pacific, Australia would like join in as well. It is also highly likely that the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland will likely join as well and possibly Germany and France.
What's strange is that we know peace eventually ends. But I also can't see how we can have a war amongst nuclear powers. Could we have a peaceful war? Is it possible? Is that what the cold war was?
With the creation of the EU, rising china, resurgence russia, india, ASEAN, africa ( eventually ), the geopolitical landscape is going to change. From a historical, economical and demographic perspective, the geopolitical center should move somewhere in europe or asia from the US eventually. There are 1 billion more chinese. One billion more indians. 500 million more europeans. It is a strange quirk of history that the US is the leader of the world.
I'd say the answer is "Look at Syria", proxy wars etc are the current best method for engaging without actually having to fight directly (which just ends super badly as it almost inevitably escalates)