As a side note, I know I mention the term "Premodern Japan" a lot in this video, but I should have also mentioned "Early-Modern Japan" as well, which can be considered from 1550-1850.
Could you also make videos on the armour & weapons used by the Japanese Emperor, Imperial Princes and Court Nobles? Also a video on how the Emperor, Imperial Princes & Court Nobles lived during Shogunal Period and the middle ages
I personally subscribe to the school of using "early modern Japan" for the very short phase at the beginning of the Meji era, in which the cultural shift is happening that allows for radical reforms that would lead to "Modern Imperial Japan", which then turned into "imperial Japan ca. (WW1)", then "Interwar Japan", "Japam ion WW2" and "Post-WW2 Japan". Instead, I refer to the time between the Battle of Sekigahara/Siege of Osaka and Admiral Perry forcing the opening to the west as either the "Self-Isolation Period", "Tokugawa Shogunate" or "Edo Period", which seem to be understood well enough by the populous to mean some sort of "Between the Premodern/feudal and westernizing time"
You have once again provided an enjoyable intellectual topic to discuss, thanks for the content! 😄🤗 Part of the core problem with generic terms such as 'feudalism' is they were mostly created during the middle of the 2nd millennium (down to the 19th-20th Century) as part of the search and implementation of the idea that all events in world history could be catalogued and disseminated, with the idea of creating a 'universal history' that encompassed the events surrounding every human that has ever existed in the world. This idea has largely been abandoned precisely for the reason you made this video, it has a bad habit of minimalizing or outright stripping individual eras/societies/humans of their own unique characteristics in favor of squeezing them into more general worldwide divisions which are often done arbitrarily and with hindsight. In my opinion the latter methodology is not very desirable because history at its base is not a science, it is an art. As an art we can enjoy the unique tendencies/characteristics/etc. of every period much like we do the individual brilliance of a Raphael painting, without forcing them into overall terms that do not really suit the people(s) in question. In terms of general discussions it is always easy to generalize using geography and dates (once again, my subjective opinion). So while referencing the Muromachi may confuse some, saying that you are talking about 14th-15th Century history on the island of Honshu (or insert preferred geographically based term here) still allows a general enough platform to create cross-comparatives with other potential case studies.
For argument sake. I realy think that you can say that we live know in a capitalism feudel age. So what thus that say about being modern?? 500 years from now people will call themselves modern to and look back at us in a different lite.
Unfortunately, many people just love deconstructing terms these days. The problem is that once you go down that road, it's very hard to stop. "Feudalism" can be deconstructed, but so can "pre-modern" and "modern" and almost every other term until you eventually deconstruct knowledge itself. "Feudalism" doesn't fit perfectly for Japan or even in all parts of Europe, but it's good enough to describe some general characteristics of a civilization, just like "democracy." Japan's democracy is unique, but you don't see people get upset when Japan is called a "democracy" rather than a unitary conservative democratic constitutional imperial monarchy.
Japan is not a Monarchy, and it most definitely is a democracy(a Judas puppet state with the evil concepts of "enlightanoids" freemasons aka the Judas)
I tend to think of Japanese history in terms of the eras events happened, i.e. Heian, Kamakura, Nanbokucho, Sengoku Jidai, Muromachi etc. I think to most westerners, and even a lot of Japanese, the Edo Period is what they envision when they think of samurai and Japanese history. To me the Edo Period is a time of stagnation when the samurai became shadows and caricatures of what they were in earlier times. I much prefer the Kamakura and Sengoku Jidai eras.
@@duncan2by4 I know the Kamakura and Edo periods referred to the capitol of the shogunate government. Sengoku Jidai is the age fo the country at war or warring states. I'm not sure about the Muromachi or Nanbokucho....but the names are generally descriptive about something during that era.
History is continuous and time periods like the Renaissance or Medieval Times are just constructs with no real "start" or "end" and serves only to simplify our understanding. As long as everyone agrees on the specific time period you are talking about, let us not let terminology get in the way of a good discussion.
I feel that there's a sort of hierarchy of understanding that comes through when one becomes more knowledgeable of a subject. Early on you understand the subject in broad or even inaccurate ways, then you learn more and more as you delve deeper in. Eventually you might understand the subject in a very precise and accurate fashion, but at the same time in a fashion others who aren't as knowledgeable can't understand without investing as much attention as you have. Feudalism, imperialism, revolution, etc are useful in that they provide that early, broad understanding of a subject that allows for deeper understanding, and facilitate common ground between different cultures and histories
Here's a little anecdote: Here in France, where I live, the medieval period of Japan is sometimes nicknamed "The World upside down", because while here in Europe the end of the Middle Ages led to a period when the kingdoms have opened up to the rest of the world, with a weakening of the important social ranks, Japan seems, at first sight, to go through a contrary movement where the social ranks deviate even more restricted and the nation is isolated from the rest of the world. Honestly, I don't know if this term can be considered offensive, but at least I find it interesting. I think the reason why it became so popular is that it's very difficult to find books on the history of medieval Japan here in France, and the most popular is called: "Histoire du Japon médiéval: Le monde à l'envers" (which is a very good book that questions where this term comes from in its prologue)
Most Japanese would see it as an arrogant and looked down attitude if they heard that from French people. So, better not to let them hear. I can see why you guys love and cherish your own revolution, though.
Feudal still seems like a great way to describe the organization of peasant labor under local political entities ruled by a hereditary nobility class. The peasants do not own the land, but pay a portion of their labor via crops or other tithes to the local authorities for the right to continue working it. These relationships are then enforced by a local semi noble warrior class (knights, cossacks, samurai, etc). Which describes pretty much the entire pre modern period of Japan. And many periods in india. And China. And Europe. And South America. Frankly its much more rare for a pre industrial society to NOT be feudal than to be otherwise (looking at you, Aztecs). Turns out its a pretty useful way to describe the experience of the vast majority of the worlds population after the invention of sedentary farming but before nationalism or the industrial revolution. Japans political structures are unique, but also in many ways they're just bog standard rule by local dictatorial political entities using food and labor taxes to maintain hierarchical relationship. Which you could find in every corner of the world for a long time. Historians always want their particular specialism to be unique and to be treated uniquely, but generally the human experience in one part of the globe is pretty much the same as in another.
I disagree. Feudalism is specific to a biased model projected onto the past by revolutionary French historians and political theorists who were looking to justify their new model of governance by contrasting it with the Feudalism they invented to describe the things they hated about the “Ancient Regime”. Hierarchy, wealth extraction, and elitism are fairy baseline for urbanized agrarian societies (with some exceptions for more egalitarian and even non-agrarian societies see Catalhoyuk, Poverty Point), but land ownership by the king who distributed it to nobles and knights in exchange for fealty, and those nobles who let peasants farm the land in exchange for taxes, is particular to those broad claims by those who advanced the Feudalist theory. In reality the relationship of the working class to the military, nobility, and royalty was more complex, with land consolidation under ownership of the crown happening as a reactionary attempt to centralize control. Then there is the matter of whether the crown functionally could reassign these lands. By law they could, but in fact the current politics, military and political alliances, and informal promises and later laws could work against or contradict this supposed supremacy of the crown over land rights. Feudalism has never been an accurate model, and the term needs to be discarded both for the sake of accuracy and long-term credibility.
Yes but that’s like saying all people eat and drink so their lives are all identical 😅 All things are unique and no theory of everything can exist for humanities 😅
@@Tinkering4Time couldn’t agree more. Especially since the idea of all peasants not owning the land they worked sounds ludicrous at least on an intuitive level. All classes in a community operate on a reciprocal basis otherwise you have Civil War.
I think feudalism really needs to be viewed at higher level. Feudalism is like a governance system, but more abstract than a normal concept of kings and constitutions. Within concepts of feudalism you begin to develop concepts like sovereignty. Now this is distinctly different from the society that is living underneath such a structure. You can see cultural evolution happening and yet have a governance structure that is semi-static. In fact you can see in Japan different permutations of governance occur over the different eras, and yet they all have very feudalistic like structures. Most notably how land ownership works. I feel that the word feudalism might be getting abused. Well this is my two cents.
Their land ownership always belongs to the nobility in the Kyoto. It just they evolve overtime that local magistrate became the real owner mostly because mongol invasion debacle.
This is one of those "lies to children" vs "academic truth" debates. "Feudal Japan" (or Feudal Anywhere) is used as a simplification for providing a basic understanding. It's technically inaccurate, but sufficient enough for a novice/amateur audience, to grasp. It's the same in every learning process for a complex subject. Junior High lessons on gravity don't start with Higgs field equations, it starts with "stuff gets pulled towards bigger stuff", which any physics professor will tell you is entirely wrong as a statement, but sufficient for a junior high understanding.
In some countries/languages this period is called "medieval Japan" instead. It's possible that some people use "feudal" and "medieval" interchangeably, depending on what will be better understood by their audience.
I think the general problem historians, even medieval historians, have with "feudalism" is that it implies a specific relationship of land, labor and class. This relationship existed in parts of Europe during the Middle Ages, but not in all of them. And I would certainly not call the state under the Sengoku Jidai "feudal", after all that was a time of complete chaos when powerful lords usurped power for themselves and largely fought with each other for more territory and power. A feudal system requires that the lords underneath pay allegiance to the king and their senior lords and obey their orders, which is certainly not what happened during the Sengoku Jidai. I think the best way to go about it is simply to call various Japanese historical periods by their names, like the Sengoku period or the Edo period, and use the word feudalism when specifically describing a government with enough feudal characteristics. The Tokugawa Shogunate certainly qualifies as one, since the central government there relied on the distribution of land and payment of taxes to maintain order, on top of asking subordinate lords to show their allegiance by spending part of the year in the capital.
The principle difficulty as I see it is in trying to balance brevity with detail. It’s all very well and good to give each and every thing is own unique name or description so that the intricacies and specifics of it may be understood even by the lesser initiated, but doing so can have the effect of making something so dense and complicated that it’s difficult to engage with. On the other hand, we must be wary of making assumptions based on more generalised ideas, especially ones that have vague definitions inherently. One can easily find academics who question the use of the term feudal to describe Europe’s Middle Ages, let alone apply it to any other culture It seems to me that we might get somewhere by applying the same approach as biologists do in phylogenetically. The old Linean system is, for all intents and purposes, outdated and in many cases outright wrong in its classifications. But it is still employed as a sort of broader signpost system to make cladistics easier to digest than shoe horning through thousands of individual clades.
"Feudalism" is a useful term to use with people who have little understanding of history. It gets the gist of what you're talking about across without needing to give a twenty minute explanation. I understand why scholars dislike it, but it has its use when talking with the average person.
The term "Feudalism" is a very broad historical concept. It is not some kind of clearly defined physical item that either exists or doesn't exist. The term "feudalism" isn't even applicable to all of Europe when it was as strongest. For instance, feudal France in the 13th century would have a lot more in common with Japan in the 13th century, compared to Switzerland or the city states of Northern Italy during the same period. In Switzerland and Northern Italy, the nobility with their rights, privileges, castles and so on, had been mostly abolished. Therefore, I see no problem with using the therm "feudalism" in relation to Japanese history, as the term is a model of description and nothing more. As you say, it helps to understand reality, as long as one is open to nuances and different interpretations.
I see "Feudal" as a useful word, used loosely. For example, "In this area at that time, the people lived under a feudal system." It tells you, roughly, how a society was ordered. There was a pyramid structure and a fair degree of local autonomy for vassals as long as duties and obligations were fulfilled. It is distinct from a tribal or clan system. It is distinct from various modern systems. If you wanted to describe the relations between warlords and their vassals/retainers in certain periods of Japanese history you could rightly say "Japanese feudalism worked this way..." To describe whole centuries in one go, it is a very inaccurate term and should be avoided except in titles and introductions. This goes for any country and period. As to being eurocentric, that is to be expected and there is nothing wicked about it. To describe something exotic, you start with the closest familiar thing and then go into how it differs. The term "Medieval" is lousy for describing European history and utterly useless outside of Europe, but "Feudal" is a good term to get a hook onto something.
I have to admit. My first impressions of Japan, came from movies. Movies set in "feudal Japan". But as I grow up, and I start researching Japanese history. I found a world that is rich culture, story and plot twists. Much more than just about samurai's and castles. Because of my hunger for knowledge and channels like this. I now tend to view history, not just by using generalized terms. But I view it in stages, eras, periods. Because "feudal Japan" isn't just one long timeline. It's a series of eras and period that eventually led to the Meiji era. I guess what I'm trying to say is. History is like a book, there's a beginning, middle and end.
The rabbit hole that is Historyography of Japan. I really enjoy the line of thought that you have introduced in this video. Would you happen to have any content on Sorces and source criticism of Japanese history?
I have tried to teach history as a respectful outsider trying to see through the lens of a different people and era. I try, but not always successfully, to avoid imposing my own biases, but it is difficult. So I understand every historian's challenges. Still, teaching history is a learning process on its own. We teach it, but we learn as we go. And hopefully we get better at it.
I teach history as well, I find being critical of my own culture and government (especially with and after lockdowns) helps in not viewing other periods and people as backwards and brutish. Just because I am raised in something, doesn't mean I have to push it and diminish other systems or the past, but Gilan we can find ourselves dragged along (press-ganged) into cultural battles if we are not careful.
I know this is a year-old video but I'd like to share my two cents. As someone who majored in the healthcare field, there is a common notion explained to us when it comes to interacting with the general public: Never assume other people know as much as you do. This includes even other professionals in the field, if they are approaching you as a client/patient rather than a fellow professional. Yes, we've learned stuff more indepth, we know more details, and we know some of what we were taught in earlier years are misconceptions or generalizations. This is definitely something that can be explained to those ignorant of it, should they have the interest to learn, but if making use of those generalizations makes things more comprehensive to them, there's no harm in it. I think the same principle applies here: I was completely ignorant of the debate on the term "feudal" for japanese history, but I came here with the intention to learn and learn I did. Great video! ❤
Couldn’t we just describe this “feudal” era as just “medieval”? Cause medieval relatively is just a time frame rather then saying anything specific like “feudal era”
@@MW_Asura But Japan’s period is quite similar to how Europe was in its medieval period. Not to say it’s the hardcore name, but it works for kind of giving an idea of what kind of era it was.
I don't think it's inherently harmful, a wise person will try use words their target audience can understand Someone who's more invested in the subject will understand better if saying Period Name > Date Someone who's less invested will understand if you can find parallel with something more familiar Even in western history we generalize large periods for the sake of broad understanding, example Rome, lasted thousands of years and something interesting happens every year, if someone is heavily invested they can find granular information but not everyone will be as invested yet they can still understand what Rome was from a broad perspective
I get how the term "medieval Japan" is problematic, but… feudal? Doesn't feudalism just mean a system where you have a ruler, with lesser lords under him/her, ruling their sub-sets of the country? Japan was clearly a feudal society, up until the Meiji restoration.
I studied Anglo-Norman history, 11th-13th century, in college. Back in the 1970s(!), Professor Elizabeth Brown wrote an article "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism & Historians of Medieval Europe". In this work she took to task the very word "feudal" as it was applied, as for every "standard model" fief that could be cited between, say 1100 and 1500 there was at least 1.5 fiefs that did *not* fit the model, depending on time, location, and personal arrangements. She also showed how the term was only really, as you rightly pointed out, an after-the-fact construct by 17th century lawyers who were primarily trying to "neaten up" some legal regulations of their own time. Conversely I have read books the compared English and Japanese feudalism, rightly pointing out similarities, but also great differences. I think the term is broadly useful for non-specialists. It gets to the gist of the matter -- a lord grants land rights of some sort to a warrior in return for service. Once you get beyond that it gets fuzzy very quickly, especially when you look at specific examples. But heck Lovecraft was terrifies by "Non-Euclidean Geometry" as if it were something weird and occult when it all really means is dealing with geometry not on a flat surface...
i was kinda hoping you would point out some of the similaraties and differences between the european system as understood and what was going in in pre modern japan. the only thing i got was term bad...... maybe
'Feudalism' is just a loose catch-all term for a type of political system. Just as democracy and dictatorship is used in similar ways. Each individual example is different, but can be categorized due to similarities for ease of use in discussion. I never thought of such terms being used as inherently malicious. They're just shorthand references of political system categories.
Ever since I learned the terms of different eras, I’ve just been using that instead. But even those terms don’t necessarily accurately account for how culture is constantly changing.
Feudalism as an idea doesn't hold much water when one starts digging into it. However, I think that you're right to keep using it for the sake of simplicity, though "premodern/early modern" is better.
This is a much bigger discussion on how to communicate. These broad simplyfied terms are often rejected by scholars in favor of proper terminology. This does however tend to veer into the narcisism of small diffrences
I always feel like the term feudal Japan is fair because there’s plenty of words in Japanese that do not have a direct 1:1 translation but instead are translated by their ideas. Just because they didn’t call it feudalism doesn’t mean the term can’t apply. Feudalism to me always has 2 key components. Landholders who raise armies and a population that is bound to the land or must perform duties for the landholder.
I guess my way of thinking about this is how I became interested in Japanese history. If a historian came up to me, named a period of Japanese history then tried to give me a deep dive into the details I probably would have lost interest and never pursued the topic further. The terms "feudal" and "medieval" were my gateway into Japanese history which then allowed me to study various time periods in depth. When talking to friends about Japanese history I'll use "feudal" it's not accurate but it's a familiar enough term that they'll have a very broad understanding about what I'm talking about. And that's fine, they don't have a deeper interest so me giving them a deeper explanation doesn't do them any favours (I've seen the glazed looks when I've tried). If, however, they want to know more, then I can go into a bit more detail. I guess what I'm saying is "feudal" is a handy, if inaccurate, place holder for people who don't have anything more than a passing interest in the topic and a handy gateway to reel people (like me) into a more in-depth look into Japanese history
Very well explained. I think you hit the topic on the nail describing it as the different structures or social structures in Japan 🗾 this structures and composition can best be described with the different rulings or shogunate. Feudalism in the Way I personally perceive it is a European medieval structures composed of bishops, kings, provinces, land structures, religious interpretación of the bible (Lutheran, Christian, católica, protestan, etc.) This in turn led to the well known feudal 100 year war. (Nothing 🚫 to do with Japan 🗾 structure). If I'm not mistaken Japan social structures at one point was based on two principals Shintoism, and budism ( coming originally from India, and through China) but depending on the ruling period this had to be balanced out as not to create dispute between the two religious beliefs (Shintoism and Budism) the structure of governance was based on the welding of this beliefs. Also depending on the shogunate land had to be distributed evenly as not to create revolts. But yes, I was seldom confused attributing a European medieval historical definition to a different historical evolution of Japan 🗾 it just didn't fit my mental concept when viewing the two. Is just like comparing the knights with the samurai or Shinobi, two different concept and fighting Technics. Thank You for your very interesting video! Very informative and interesting. This video will be a Methanoia in many peoples minds.
While I agree that using simplified terms is effective in reaching a broader audience, I also believe that history itself is not a simple topic. There are always specific details and events that require an explanation that simplifying simply cannot communicate. So yes, it is useful when communicating to people that may only have a surface level idea of that time but once the said audience is engaged, I think it’s better to discuss individual time periods within the broadly defined “period” as their own respective eras.
As a teacher myself I see the issue of terminology here mostly as a conflict between accuracy and accessibility (or simplicity). We don't want to make discussing history so complicated in pursuit of accuracy, that it is impossible to have a conversation about it unless both speakers are experts.
I think 'decolonizing' from the standpoint of being careful to recognize when using euro centric lense is important, _but_ You have to givr your mainly western audience concepts they can relate to. You can't just teleport in the mileau of another culture. You have to walk there. Also some concepts may be universal. Feudalism with Japanese Characteristics may be a good way to put it :) Empire is western term. Kingdom is a western term. Vassal. Yet we are comfortable apying them to Japan and other non western countries even though their meaning is definitely not 100pct the same (just like the Holy Roman Empire was not exactly like the Roman empire which was not like the Byzantine empire)
No matter what any word that is used to encompass anything can be debated in a technical sense. A word like Feudal just allows people to have a conversation about something without a very involved discussion, possible never ending, on agreeable terms and definitions. As an aside the way Patreon has programed their system has decided my payment method has expired despite my attempts to update. Inability to reach a human means all I get is we are very busy will get back to you whenever we want to. I want to remain one of your patron supporter's and am doing all I can to make that happen. Also, think it's about time for new livestream at least RUclips updated my payment info instantly.
Honestly I didn't even know that it was a issue to people I just used to because it seems to be easier for people to understand because it covers such a wide range of time that if I got more specific most people probably wouldn't understand what I was talking about🤷♂️
Perhaps I’m alone in this, but I tend to think in terms of “medieval Europe” and “feudal Japan”. For me, both concepts depict a vast era wherein tyrants subjugated mass peasantry and robust warriors (knights & samurai) guided by their own idiosyncratic honor codes (chivalry & bushido) worked, killed and died for their respective authoritative powers. It’s less about indicating a particular time and place and more about referencing a great historic mural that spans an age, the medieval and/or feudal period(s). Such are categorical terms, not meant for precise specificity.
I think that creating a bridge of understanding is important. Like I know some periods of Japanese history...particularly Sengoku where my interest first kicked off. Depending on who I am speaking to I may use Fuedal Japan when speaking in broad terms but usually I end up saying something like "Sengoku period around 1560 Nobunaga......" or "during the time of Genji in......" basically making references to periods and time frame together and people seem to respond well to that. I also use examples people might have seen from anime and video games since Japan's historical figures get pulled into these things all the time. I think back to when I first saw the beginning of Onimusha Warlords for example and spurted out "Thats Nobunaga!" RIght before the cut scene said who he was XD. By the way...I would like to join that Discord server for Japanese History.
Saying Feudal Japan does reference a specific political, economic, and social framework. You can say Medieval. But probably the best world be Post-Classical. That is a specific time period, and societies across the world varied greatly during this time.
Feudalism may be an unpopular term in modern historiography, but I don't see how it can be abandoned altogether. In many continental European countries, "the abolition of feudalism" was a specific event associated with the post-Napoleonic period, encompassing broadening rights to land ownership and the removal of sort of unpleasant feudal dues owed by a peasant to the lord. In this sense, I think you can refer to the pre-modern period in Japanese history as "feudalism" in English, since the post-feudal Meiji period was associated with changing land ownership patterns, shifting relationships between the warrior class and peasants, etc. As you mentioned, this is sort of a Marxist interpretation, but it has its uses. Wonderful video.
I personally find the term to be perfectly serviceable. I know that it's an anachronistic European term but to me it represents a technological and sociological stage in the civilization arc. Maybe even an "Iron Age" if you will. Serf farmers, iron/steel weapons, stone castles, noble vs peasant castes, etc. All these components are synonymous with feudalism to me although I understand your mileage will vary. An allegory can be found in India, China, Japan, Africa, the Middle-East and of course Europe. Maybe it's due to my ignorance or brevity of sources, but I can't recall what I would consider "feudal" America. The Aztecs maybe? The development arc seems so different that I'm forced to frame it differently in my mind. Something akin to almost a Classical Period that exists up until Europeans land with breastplates, pikes, horses and guns. I also apologize if I have left out the rich history of feudal Antarctican Penguin society. I'm sure there were some exciting ice jousts before we landed there.
One thing for sure thru Japan history social structure. Farmers always been there and been important part of Japan. Well most will probably say "Samurai "represent Japan, but for me, I think the Rice farmers are the most common view of Japan thru history.
You could say all the same things about "feudal Europe,' which you alluded to. Ironically, I'm going to overgeneralize this entire subject as semantics.
Generalizing a term without giving the context behind it is surely harmful from an academic point of view, yes we understand this. But having a clear line to emphasize the difference and thus showing the richness of such subject is a good thing in my humble opinion. Like saying European "feudalism" or Japanese "feudalism" by doing this the recipient will be intrigued and if he's is curious enough he'll ask about the difference. To the truly initiated history buff, this is not a big problem because he'll generally use the period names and year.
I think I'd only say "Feudal Japan" for a highly generalized "this is what I'm calling it briefly and off hand for someone who is not knowledgeable on it at this moment", but in terms of specifics, I would stick with the actual names for the periods since those alone explain shifts in power, and just looking into the title can give you so much detail into that period. "Feudal Japan" really doesn't tell you anything, or give any details of its development outside of "this is before industrialization and enforced Westernization". Which is convenient offhand but is a bit too hand wavy and simplistic if I was engaging in an actual discussion over it.
I don't know a lot about history or Japanese history, but by watching this video, I am of the opinion that the word 'feudalism' is a totally justified word, if used carefully. If in discussion with experts about the eras that practiced 'feudalism', the correct terms associated with that period should be used, because the people in the discussion have an understanding of the topic. If used in a discussion or lower-end lecture for example, the term 'feudalism' is 100% justified if it's consciously used as an abstract term, to give people the opportunity to understand things on a basic level. I have never thought of the usage of the word 'feudalism', but after watching this video I think that if it is consciously used in an abstract sense, it's an incredible powerful term that everyone understands. This is very useful in teachings, what humans are built to do in essence.
In all fairness, the world's development speed has to do with technology. Having fashion trends go by decade or year makes more sense in an age where there are more and more to choose from.
I always thought of feudal to mean a time or situation that involved many smaller FEUDS between smaller factions (too small to really be "wars" in the modern sense), at the end of which, the ultimate winner became a NATION. A tournament of sorts for power over all those factions involved...minus a few stragglers of course...like the Scotts, or ANY mountain, swamp, or otherwise geographically isolated people really.
I don't see how anything about feudalism, is European or Euro-centric, and applying perfectly well, to a large part of Japanese history, and the history of many other places. One could perhaps argue, that it is used/understood in a couple of different ways, leading to misunderstandings and confusion, but... As opposed to the terms Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance, which are firmly European, and should never be used to describe the history of any other place, and even within Europe, it must be understood that the starting/ending dates of each, are different in different places, as well as not really being precise.
I have a hard time seeing why this is a problem? Sure it’s a wide brush but Japan was very much a feudal society up until the Meiji period? With domains and Daimyo? I have just always seen it as a very wide way of saying “that time with Samurai”
I personally think it is a useful tool, but when used should be noted for its inaccuracies . for example saying "commonly referred to as feudal japan, though more precisely the edo period" or something similar.
I never thought about it. I say "Feudal Japan" when talking about Samurais and such. It's a lot easier for people to think about that since it's become the norm.
I read an undergrad in history and have been introduced to Marxism as a historical device. I’m not a doctrinal adherent to Marxism by any sense of the word but i often found it useful to employ the technique of Marxism on specific questions and regard the answers it provides as one of several, even only to tease out further questions. As to the grand narrative of feudalism then capitalism then socialism, that I consider a politic or a religion more than a history. 😅
I don't really care what people call things as long as they convey information well enough. Controversies are a bit like conspiracy theories these days, good for people with nothing better to do.
It’s kinda like seeing something fly up in the sky . What is it ? A airplane , good answer . But no definition of propeller vs jet …. Military vs civilization , passenger vs cargo etc etc etc ……. As a quick marker it’s sufficient, as a proper definition , it’s inadequate.
My rough understanding is, if a lord’s land is divided to fiefs, and the warriors who got those fiefs owe military service to the lord, then it’s feudalism. So I think it should be ok to call Japan between kamakura and Momoyama a feudal society…
I understand the use of feudalism when dealing with creation of content on RUclips, but I also think you should go through the specifities of the japanese eras you're covering as much as you can at some point. Like how the government worked, the institutions, the economy, the culture. In that sense, feudalism could even come in handy, as you would have a tool for comparison and making it easier for the audience to understand something new from what is more familiar to them. Many civilizations in the world lost their "uniqueness" because of eurocentric terms, like the Aztecs and Incas, whose institutions were compared to Europe's, as it worked with some sort of monarchy too, but in reality was a very different form of monarchical rule.
I find these things interesting. Ultimately all the same issues could be put to the term "Medieval period" as within that is a huge cultural and technological change in ma y different periods depending on which nations you're talking about. Or another way to look at it is that no one in the English speaking world refers to Germany as Deutschland. Everyone projects their own methods of understanding on external entities. It's only natural and in my insignificant opinion shouldn't be seen as an inherently bad thing
Teaching a bit of Japanese history privately, to appeal and motivate students that have no idea, I start by talking about "samurai Japan", because they can get what a samurai is pretty quickly. Then we use "feudal Japan" as we understand its structures and groups, then we talk periods. Start like you are doing marketing, move to history.
The use of feudalism applied to non western cultures or states should not really be controversial. I am a history of the late medieval and early modern Islamic world and there are strong examples of feudal type systems there, where military elites provide protection to commoners in exchange for taxes and working land. The Mamluk iqta and Ottoman timariots are both examples of feudal organization that those societies described in their own words as being feudal. It would be interesting to address this subject from the Japanese perspective by reading sources from the Kamakura or Muromachi period to see how they described social relations and administration.
We in the west sympathize and resonate with the idea of history being driven by the "Great Names", because that's the way our own-i.e.: western- histories are presented.
It feels like any controversy or major complaint about the term feudal Japan is just people crying about cultural appropriation, when even in the west what we would call feudal Europe the dates are also debated and can be broken down into different eras as well, which can be done even further if you go by country (Germany has the 1st Reich in feudal Europe for example). Feudalism is a form of government so why shouldn't something with a feudal structured government be know as feudal as each country and culture in Europe even did things differently.
Any term can be dissected to the point of irrelevance if indulged. But I don't see how "pre-modern" is a more accurate term than "feudal." It may not make problematic comparisons. But it is utterly devoid of specificity.
I think it is natural to adapt terms specific to one certain aspect to other uses to get a first familirization. As you mention "feudalism" is not even a fixed concept in Europe, neither by time or place. So of course, it is not adequate to describe thoroughly a complete era of Japanese history. Then again, it is a first concept, which sets a specific tone. Just like there are different operas, but they are still operas. Cars can be very different. They are still cars. I do not see the harm. Is it a complete picture? No. However, a person without much knowledge, might at least get a tentative idea. Having not much knowledge they should know that this is only vaguely descriptive and it should be clear that you cannot adequately describe several eras of a country's history with a single term. Does "feudal Germany" exist? No. Germany changed a lot during feudalism. Feudalism is in itself not a concept that stagnated for some centuries, but evolved. A learned person should on the other hand know even more that the topic is far more complex anyway. So I do not see the harm but using a generalized term as a keyword, which can be used to roughly distinguish between periods, before using other terms to get a higher resolution.
The title makes this aound like it's gunna be one of those influencer drama videos. Like, "💅oh my gosh guys! You wouldn't _believe_ who the emperor killed next!✨ 💅"
I think it depends. On a broad scale to introduce someone to the concept of pre-westernised Japan, it is fine. But as is obvious, feudalism is more of a Eurocentric concept than an Asian or Japanese one in this case. Therefore I think it is important to add that, while it may be fine to generalise to those who are only getting started, it should not be seen as an ok term, and the appropriate terms should be used for where it works. You wouldn't say, Kamakura England would you, haha?
Lol Eurocentric? Europe adopt feudalism from their Hunnic overlord just because they destroy Roman Empire and replace local tribal order. This is why it can spread in both west and east because both have contact with Eurasian nomad (Japan have their own nomad migration at the same period) but not China, because the Chinese see this concept as abomination. Why you call it Kamakura England? Did England have a city called Kamakura?
Words, words, words, words...Can't live with 'em, can't speak without 'em. Japanese feudalism and Western European Feudalism are different. This is why they are labeled "Japanese" and "Western European". Do these words define what these times and places were actually like? No, because words don't define anything, they are defined, and by other words. Words point in a general direction, using better words, or adding additional words might be more precise, but you can't get past the fact that the listener has to use their own brain to understand what they hear. Perhaps a useful work-around: "What has been called the Japanese Feudal Period..."
just as it takes all sorts of people to make the world work the way it does we cant expect carpenters to understand the lingo used by a historian. if we disregard the concepts that allow the masses to understand more, then all we will achieve is further separation across borders.
Does the "Premodern Japan" even make sense when Japan from the Meiji Restoration until 1945 is very different from post WW2 Japan? I don't consider "modern Japan" as starting until after Japan surrendered to America.
As with all words it really is a case of how you use them. If you are trying to explain pre-edo-period Japan to a westerner that has no idea about japanese history I would argue using the term as a BRIDGE to help make mental connections and ease understanding definately has merit and a place. While it is a oversimplification, true, to equate a Daimyo to a noble like a count and or a duke that has an elevated class of fighters like knights, the Samurai, under his command it can help ease somebody with no knowledge in. We do this in languages all the time, using comparisons and analogues to explain things. I personally find the idea of outright "banning" terms counter-productive and harmful for precisely that reason. Imagine, if you will, for a moment that we outlaw the use of "God/Gods" when comparing religious teachings because some faiths are monotheistic, some are polytheistic and others don't fall in either category. Trying to explain theological concepts starts becoming needlessly harder. Besides, the more one goes into detail when learning about a subject the more one is able to stop using more general terms and use the more fitting and specialized ones. But by drawing paralells between cultures and ideas we bridge the gap of knowledge and understanding easier. I've went from using Feudal Japan to referring to the various periods over the last few years but I still use Feudal when explaining things to others like my mother for instance who knows nothing about japanese historical periods. Likewise I've referred to Samurai as something like the Knights we had here in centuries past and Daimyos as Noble Lords that have lands but are vassals to the Shogun, etc. I tried explaining it at first only using the "correct" terms but she quickly lost track in the barrage of terms. But the moment I gave her something to equate it to that she already knows about the amount of constant questions she had dropped substantially. ...anyways, this has turned a bit into a ramble. Those are just my "2 cents".
History writers seem to ignore, though my personal experience of 60 years says a lot about how places change, is Demography. More peeps, less peeps change things. How many young males, military age, laborers, makes a big diff, as well as number of child bearing aged women. Guess historians avoid topics they don't have enough sources to cite, but, they can guess.
Isn't pre-modern just as blanket a tern as feudal? 'Feudal' Britain, France, 'Germany', Russia, etc all had their differences, but they are unified by core themes, which feudal Japan also shares I can see an upset about calling say the Edo period 'feudal Japan', but I see no issue with calling the Sengoku Jidai, and even prior to maybe the Genpei wars, as Japan's feudal era
I don't really think it is that harmful, understanding is the most part. I will say those Marxist historians didn't sound too sound too smart though, like they completely ignore stuff that happened and the differences in tons of countries and act like everything is the same. Also shouldn't the term "euro-centric" be "anglo-centric" if we really wanted to go down that route. I mean in my country we had another system so we use other words to describe it. They sound far more ideological than anyone interested in historical research.
I think if you are talking to people who are trying to get into it or just don't know much, it would be easier to just say feudal. But, if you are talking to other Japanese historians, then I think it should be completely fine to use the period names, seeing as they should know them. At the very least, some of them anyway.
sure its an over generalization but gives an idea of the social characteristics of the era, you'd have to be very thick to make it mean its just like feudal Europe, the term works cause it gives an idea of the kind of society and common sense tells you it must have had a ton of unique characteristics. The whole controversy feels like part of the hate everything from Europe trend of late. Sure individual period names would be most correct but most people would be lost just like a biologist demanding you use the correct family name for each obscure group of animals or talking about a species by its latin name, part of comunicating is adapting to the context you are in.
everybody has to learn using their frame of reference. if youre familiar with european feudalism and other european concepts you might have to equate those somewhat to foreign concepts at first to understand the basics of the ideas. but once youve reached that understanding you're ready to go to the further understanding of how it's different. its part of the learning process. if we say that this is unacceptable and one must understand these concepts as their own distinct ideas without referencing the body of knowledge they already have then you are doing the subject in question a GREAT disservice because not everyone has the same innate intelligence or ability to grasp certain ideas and using a frame of reference helps them. without using frame of reference, people arent going to rise to the challenge of really understanding these unique ideas like you think they should, theyre more likely to just not put extra effort into understanding them at all at remain mostly ignorant. is that better? ignorance leads to distrust leads to resentment quite easily. there's a wide gulf between people who are wrong but dont mean to be and dont want to be and people who are wrong who know they are and dont care or know they are and want to be. but if you say there isnt a difference between the 2 then eventually you will be right. we have to allow people to be mistaken as long as they arent malevolent in their intent. is it surprising that a "eurocentric" mindset predominates most of 1st world culture today when the cultures outside of this have greatly endeavored to keep their society and culture away from "foreign barbarians"? you cant have a secret that you dont share but expect the world to know.
If taxes were paid in services and goods or if lords owned land as a means of control rather than money, then its a feudal system. Its not to say Feudalism didn't have money but services and goods were more critical as money couldn't always buy them. This was due in part that money was an unnecessary middleman when you needed the farmers and fighters on your land to farm and fight.
i don't think we should dumb down concepts for those who don't understand them, if i say "heian period japan" and someone doesn't know what i mean then i'd rather explain it to them than say "medieval japan" and leave them just as dumb as before
I think it's a bit of a fuss over nothing. Fuedalism, as in, soldiers and farmers owing service to their lords, was there. It wasn't the only thing that was happening. Cities existed as a kind of microstate. And how the service worked varied across time and space.
![Classes, Ranks, and Titles of Feudal Japan [Kamakura and Muromachi Periods]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0bbe7tGF6fo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Classes, Ranks, and Titles of Feudal Japan [Kamakura and Muromachi Periods]](/img/tr.png)
As a side note, I know I mention the term "Premodern Japan" a lot in this video, but I should have also mentioned "Early-Modern Japan" as well, which can be considered from 1550-1850.
Could you also make videos on the armour & weapons used by the Japanese Emperor, Imperial Princes and Court Nobles? Also a video on how the Emperor, Imperial Princes & Court Nobles lived during Shogunal Period and the middle ages
The Tokugawa era defied many notions of modernity, and gave up the arms race even after pushing ahead initially.
I personally subscribe to the school of using "early modern Japan" for the very short phase at the beginning of the Meji era, in which the cultural shift is happening that allows for radical reforms that would lead to "Modern Imperial Japan", which then turned into "imperial Japan ca. (WW1)", then "Interwar Japan", "Japam ion WW2" and "Post-WW2 Japan".
Instead, I refer to the time between the Battle of Sekigahara/Siege of Osaka and Admiral Perry forcing the opening to the west as either the "Self-Isolation Period", "Tokugawa Shogunate" or "Edo Period", which seem to be understood well enough by the populous to mean some sort of "Between the Premodern/feudal and westernizing time"
You have once again provided an enjoyable intellectual topic to discuss, thanks for the content! 😄🤗
Part of the core problem with generic terms such as 'feudalism' is they were mostly created during the middle of the 2nd millennium (down to the 19th-20th Century) as part of the search and implementation of the idea that all events in world history could be catalogued and disseminated, with the idea of creating a 'universal history' that encompassed the events surrounding every human that has ever existed in the world. This idea has largely been abandoned precisely for the reason you made this video, it has a bad habit of minimalizing or outright stripping individual eras/societies/humans of their own unique characteristics in favor of squeezing them into more general worldwide divisions which are often done arbitrarily and with hindsight. In my opinion the latter methodology is not very desirable because history at its base is not a science, it is an art. As an art we can enjoy the unique tendencies/characteristics/etc. of every period much like we do the individual brilliance of a Raphael painting, without forcing them into overall terms that do not really suit the people(s) in question. In terms of general discussions it is always easy to generalize using geography and dates (once again, my subjective opinion). So while referencing the Muromachi may confuse some, saying that you are talking about 14th-15th Century history on the island of Honshu (or insert preferred geographically based term here) still allows a general enough platform to create cross-comparatives with other potential case studies.
For argument sake. I realy think that you can say that we live know in a capitalism feudel age. So what thus that say about being modern?? 500 years from now people will call themselves modern to and look back at us in a different lite.
Unfortunately, many people just love deconstructing terms these days. The problem is that once you go down that road, it's very hard to stop. "Feudalism" can be deconstructed, but so can "pre-modern" and "modern" and almost every other term until you eventually deconstruct knowledge itself.
"Feudalism" doesn't fit perfectly for Japan or even in all parts of Europe, but it's good enough to describe some general characteristics of a civilization, just like "democracy." Japan's democracy is unique, but you don't see people get upset when Japan is called a "democracy" rather than a unitary conservative democratic constitutional imperial monarchy.
I definitely agree with that to an extent
Pre-modern ended ten minutes ago :)
Nnnnnnj
Jjn
Japan is not a Monarchy, and it most definitely is a democracy(a Judas puppet state with the evil concepts of "enlightanoids" freemasons aka the Judas)
I tend to think of Japanese history in terms of the eras events happened, i.e. Heian, Kamakura, Nanbokucho, Sengoku Jidai, Muromachi etc. I think to most westerners, and even a lot of Japanese, the Edo Period is what they envision when they think of samurai and Japanese history. To me the Edo Period is a time of stagnation when the samurai became shadows and caricatures of what they were in earlier times. I much prefer the Kamakura and Sengoku Jidai eras.
How do the Eras get their names?
Sengoku is king
@@duncan2by4 I know the Kamakura and Edo periods referred to the capitol of the shogunate government. Sengoku Jidai is the age fo the country at war or warring states. I'm not sure about the Muromachi or Nanbokucho....but the names are generally descriptive about something during that era.
@@sexmusichandle My personal favorite the end of Heian and the Kamakura but there wasn't a dull moment during the Sengoku.
@@midtwnscott both are good🤝
History is continuous and time periods like the Renaissance or Medieval Times are just constructs with no real "start" or "end" and serves only to simplify our understanding. As long as everyone agrees on the specific time period you are talking about, let us not let terminology get in the way of a good discussion.
Agreed. Time itself is continuous and labels serve our convenience not the other way around. 😅
I feel that there's a sort of hierarchy of understanding that comes through when one becomes more knowledgeable of a subject.
Early on you understand the subject in broad or even inaccurate ways, then you learn more and more as you delve deeper in.
Eventually you might understand the subject in a very precise and accurate fashion, but at the same time in a fashion others who aren't as knowledgeable can't understand without investing as much attention as you have.
Feudalism, imperialism, revolution, etc are useful in that they provide that early, broad understanding of a subject that allows for deeper understanding, and facilitate common ground between different cultures and histories
Here's a little anecdote: Here in France, where I live, the medieval period of Japan is sometimes nicknamed "The World upside down", because while here in Europe the end of the Middle Ages led to a period when the kingdoms have opened up to the rest of the world, with a weakening of the important social ranks, Japan seems, at first sight, to go through a contrary movement where the social ranks deviate even more restricted and the nation is isolated from the rest of the world.
Honestly, I don't know if this term can be considered offensive, but at least I find it interesting. I think the reason why it became so popular is that it's very difficult to find books on the history of medieval Japan here in France, and the most popular is called: "Histoire du Japon médiéval: Le monde à l'envers" (which is a very good book that questions where this term comes from in its prologue)
Who cares if it's offensive tbh? It's a good way of thinking about it.
Most Japanese would see it as an arrogant and looked down attitude if they heard that from French people. So, better not to let them hear. I can see why you guys love and cherish your own revolution, though.
@@tykep1009 I still wonder why frenchies love the French revolution...
Feudal still seems like a great way to describe the organization of peasant labor under local political entities ruled by a hereditary nobility class. The peasants do not own the land, but pay a portion of their labor via crops or other tithes to the local authorities for the right to continue working it. These relationships are then enforced by a local semi noble warrior class (knights, cossacks, samurai, etc). Which describes pretty much the entire pre modern period of Japan. And many periods in india. And China. And Europe. And South America. Frankly its much more rare for a pre industrial society to NOT be feudal than to be otherwise (looking at you, Aztecs). Turns out its a pretty useful way to describe the experience of the vast majority of the worlds population after the invention of sedentary farming but before nationalism or the industrial revolution. Japans political structures are unique, but also in many ways they're just bog standard rule by local dictatorial political entities using food and labor taxes to maintain hierarchical relationship. Which you could find in every corner of the world for a long time.
Historians always want their particular specialism to be unique and to be treated uniquely, but generally the human experience in one part of the globe is pretty much the same as in another.
Spot on!
It seems like an accurate term vague yes but accurate in its description of the systems in place.
I disagree. Feudalism is specific to a biased model projected onto the past by revolutionary French historians and political theorists who were looking to justify their new model of governance by contrasting it with the Feudalism they invented to describe the things they hated about the “Ancient Regime”. Hierarchy, wealth extraction, and elitism are fairy baseline for urbanized agrarian societies (with some exceptions for more egalitarian and even non-agrarian societies see Catalhoyuk, Poverty Point), but land ownership by the king who distributed it to nobles and knights in exchange for fealty, and those nobles who let peasants farm the land in exchange for taxes, is particular to those broad claims by those who advanced the Feudalist theory. In reality the relationship of the working class to the military, nobility, and royalty was more complex, with land consolidation under ownership of the crown happening as a reactionary attempt to centralize control. Then there is the matter of whether the crown functionally could reassign these lands. By law they could, but in fact the current politics, military and political alliances, and informal promises and later laws could work against or contradict this supposed supremacy of the crown over land rights.
Feudalism has never been an accurate model, and the term needs to be discarded both for the sake of accuracy and long-term credibility.
Yes but that’s like saying all people eat and drink so their lives are all identical 😅
All things are unique and no theory of everything can exist for humanities 😅
@@Tinkering4Time couldn’t agree more. Especially since the idea of all peasants not owning the land they worked sounds ludicrous at least on an intuitive level. All classes in a community operate on a reciprocal basis otherwise you have Civil War.
I think feudalism really needs to be viewed at higher level. Feudalism is like a governance system, but more abstract than a normal concept of kings and constitutions. Within concepts of feudalism you begin to develop concepts like sovereignty.
Now this is distinctly different from the society that is living underneath such a structure.
You can see cultural evolution happening and yet have a governance structure that is semi-static. In fact you can see in Japan different permutations of governance occur over the different eras, and yet they all have very feudalistic like structures. Most notably how land ownership works.
I feel that the word feudalism might be getting abused.
Well this is my two cents.
More like stable decentralization. When things get unstable you get the Sengoku period of infighting and the lack of a powerful central state-figure.
Their land ownership always belongs to the nobility in the Kyoto. It just they evolve overtime that local magistrate became the real owner mostly because mongol invasion debacle.
This is one of those "lies to children" vs "academic truth" debates.
"Feudal Japan" (or Feudal Anywhere) is used as a simplification for providing a basic understanding. It's technically inaccurate, but sufficient enough for a novice/amateur audience, to grasp.
It's the same in every learning process for a complex subject. Junior High lessons on gravity don't start with Higgs field equations, it starts with "stuff gets pulled towards bigger stuff", which any physics professor will tell you is entirely wrong as a statement, but sufficient for a junior high understanding.
Please list specifically how it is "technically inaccurate." 😏
🍻
@@WR3ND That's covered in the video.
@@theapostatejack8648 Not very well, unfortunately.
Not even junior high would describe gravity that way. Everything pulls everything else is what I’ve been told and I’m in humanities 😅
In some countries/languages this period is called "medieval Japan" instead. It's possible that some people use "feudal" and "medieval" interchangeably, depending on what will be better understood by their audience.
Which is erroneous, since "Medieval" is a term that only applies to Europe
I think the general problem historians, even medieval historians, have with "feudalism" is that it implies a specific relationship of land, labor and class. This relationship existed in parts of Europe during the Middle Ages, but not in all of them. And I would certainly not call the state under the Sengoku Jidai "feudal", after all that was a time of complete chaos when powerful lords usurped power for themselves and largely fought with each other for more territory and power. A feudal system requires that the lords underneath pay allegiance to the king and their senior lords and obey their orders, which is certainly not what happened during the Sengoku Jidai.
I think the best way to go about it is simply to call various Japanese historical periods by their names, like the Sengoku period or the Edo period, and use the word feudalism when specifically describing a government with enough feudal characteristics. The Tokugawa Shogunate certainly qualifies as one, since the central government there relied on the distribution of land and payment of taxes to maintain order, on top of asking subordinate lords to show their allegiance by spending part of the year in the capital.
The principle difficulty as I see it is in trying to balance brevity with detail. It’s all very well and good to give each and every thing is own unique name or description so that the intricacies and specifics of it may be understood even by the lesser initiated, but doing so can have the effect of making something so dense and complicated that it’s difficult to engage with.
On the other hand, we must be wary of making assumptions based on more generalised ideas, especially ones that have vague definitions inherently. One can easily find academics who question the use of the term feudal to describe Europe’s Middle Ages, let alone apply it to any other culture
It seems to me that we might get somewhere by applying the same approach as biologists do in phylogenetically. The old Linean system is, for all intents and purposes, outdated and in many cases outright wrong in its classifications. But it is still employed as a sort of broader signpost system to make cladistics easier to digest than shoe horning through thousands of individual clades.
"Feudalism" is a useful term to use with people who have little understanding of history. It gets the gist of what you're talking about across without needing to give a twenty minute explanation. I understand why scholars dislike it, but it has its use when talking with the average person.
I'd really love to see a video comparing and contrasting Japan and Europe's feudal systems
The term "Feudalism" is a very broad historical concept. It is not some kind of clearly defined physical item that either exists or doesn't exist.
The term "feudalism" isn't even applicable to all of Europe when it was as strongest. For instance, feudal France in the 13th century would have a lot more in common with Japan in the 13th century, compared to Switzerland or the city states of Northern Italy during the same period. In Switzerland and Northern Italy, the nobility with their rights, privileges, castles and so on, had been mostly abolished.
Therefore, I see no problem with using the therm "feudalism" in relation to Japanese history, as the term is a model of description and nothing more. As you say, it helps to understand reality, as long as one is open to nuances and different interpretations.
You can spend your whole life arguing over semantics, don't worry about it so much.
I break Japanese history down like this: Paleolithic, Jômon (Mesolithic) (Neolithic), Yayoi (Iron Age), Tomb phase (Yamato) (Kofun), Nara, Heian, Kenmu Restoration (Kenmu revolution), Kamakura bakufu (Kamakura shogunate), Muromachi (Ashikaga shogunate) (Ashikaga bakufu), Warring States (Sengoku), Edo (Tokugawa bakufu) (Tokugawa shogunate) (Early Modern Japan), Imperial (Empire) (Empire of Japan) (Modern Japan), Post-War (Modern Japan), Lost Decades (present day Japan) (post-economic collapse Japan)
I see "Feudal" as a useful word, used loosely. For example, "In this area at that time, the people lived under a feudal system." It tells you, roughly, how a society was ordered. There was a pyramid structure and a fair degree of local autonomy for vassals as long as duties and obligations were fulfilled. It is distinct from a tribal or clan system. It is distinct from various modern systems.
If you wanted to describe the relations between warlords and their vassals/retainers in certain periods of Japanese history you could rightly say "Japanese feudalism worked this way..."
To describe whole centuries in one go, it is a very inaccurate term and should be avoided except in titles and introductions. This goes for any country and period. As to being eurocentric, that is to be expected and there is nothing wicked about it. To describe something exotic, you start with the closest familiar thing and then go into how it differs.
The term "Medieval" is lousy for describing European history and utterly useless outside of Europe, but "Feudal" is a good term to get a hook onto something.
My ancestor is upper class samurai and part of Daimyo's family. I love Edo period's Japan and Tokugawa shogunate.
I have to admit. My first impressions of Japan, came from movies. Movies set in "feudal Japan". But as I grow up, and I start researching Japanese history. I found a world that is rich culture, story and plot twists. Much more than just about samurai's and castles.
Because of my hunger for knowledge and channels like this. I now tend to view history, not just by using generalized terms. But I view it in stages, eras, periods. Because "feudal Japan" isn't just one long timeline. It's a series of eras and period that eventually led to the Meiji era. I guess what I'm trying to say is. History is like a book, there's a beginning, middle and end.
I enjoy your videos and information. Also your cadences is good as well.
i was just about to scratch my nuts when, the notification of new shogunate video sounded!
The rabbit hole that is Historyography of Japan. I really enjoy the line of thought that you have introduced in this video. Would you happen to have any content on Sorces and source criticism of Japanese history?
Know your student
Don't demand the student to be a master, just yet.
Love that you referenced Karolina, that was unexpected but appreciated!
I have tried to teach history as a respectful outsider trying to see through the lens of a different people and era. I try, but not always successfully, to avoid imposing my own biases, but it is difficult. So I understand every historian's challenges. Still, teaching history is a learning process on its own. We teach it, but we learn as we go. And hopefully we get better at it.
I teach history as well, I find being critical of my own culture and government (especially with and after lockdowns) helps in not viewing other periods and people as backwards and brutish. Just because I am raised in something, doesn't mean I have to push it and diminish other systems or the past, but Gilan we can find ourselves dragged along (press-ganged) into cultural battles if we are not careful.
@@The_Custos Agreed. To be careful is part of our duty of stewardship.
@@gilanbarona9814 it brings great honour. 😏
I know this is a year-old video but I'd like to share my two cents. As someone who majored in the healthcare field, there is a common notion explained to us when it comes to interacting with the general public: Never assume other people know as much as you do. This includes even other professionals in the field, if they are approaching you as a client/patient rather than a fellow professional. Yes, we've learned stuff more indepth, we know more details, and we know some of what we were taught in earlier years are misconceptions or generalizations. This is definitely something that can be explained to those ignorant of it, should they have the interest to learn, but if making use of those generalizations makes things more comprehensive to them, there's no harm in it. I think the same principle applies here: I was completely ignorant of the debate on the term "feudal" for japanese history, but I came here with the intention to learn and learn I did. Great video! ❤
Couldn’t we just describe this “feudal” era as just “medieval”? Cause medieval relatively is just a time frame rather then saying anything specific like “feudal era”
No, because "medieval" is a term that only applies to Europe
@@MW_Asura But Japan’s period is quite similar to how Europe was in its medieval period. Not to say it’s the hardcore name, but it works for kind of giving an idea of what kind of era it was.
I don't think it's inherently harmful, a wise person will try use words their target audience can understand
Someone who's more invested in the subject will understand better if saying Period Name > Date
Someone who's less invested will understand if you can find parallel with something more familiar
Even in western history we generalize large periods for the sake of broad understanding, example Rome, lasted thousands of years and something interesting happens every year, if someone is heavily invested they can find granular information but not everyone will be as invested yet they can still understand what Rome was from a broad perspective
I get how the term "medieval Japan" is problematic, but… feudal? Doesn't feudalism just mean a system where you have a ruler, with lesser lords under him/her, ruling their sub-sets of the country? Japan was clearly a feudal society, up until the Meiji restoration.
I studied Anglo-Norman history, 11th-13th century, in college. Back in the 1970s(!), Professor Elizabeth Brown wrote an article "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism & Historians of Medieval Europe". In this work she took to task the very word "feudal" as it was applied, as for every "standard model" fief that could be cited between, say 1100 and 1500 there was at least 1.5 fiefs that did *not* fit the model, depending on time, location, and personal arrangements. She also showed how the term was only really, as you rightly pointed out, an after-the-fact construct by 17th century lawyers who were primarily trying to "neaten up" some legal regulations of their own time.
Conversely I have read books the compared English and Japanese feudalism, rightly pointing out similarities, but also great differences.
I think the term is broadly useful for non-specialists. It gets to the gist of the matter -- a lord grants land rights of some sort to a warrior in return for service. Once you get beyond that it gets fuzzy very quickly, especially when you look at specific examples.
But heck Lovecraft was terrifies by "Non-Euclidean Geometry" as if it were something weird and occult when it all really means is dealing with geometry not on a flat surface...
This was a excellent videon n im glad you made it n i love your sengoku jidai series, could you please do the gempei war period?
i was kinda hoping you would point out some of the similaraties and differences between the european system as understood and what was going in in pre modern japan. the only thing i got was term bad...... maybe
The problem with that is the terms are so diverse (and debatable) that discussing then would take its own video.
@@TheShogunate yes those are the videos i would like
'Feudalism' is just a loose catch-all term for a type of political system. Just as democracy and dictatorship is used in similar ways. Each individual example is different, but can be categorized due to similarities for ease of use in discussion. I never thought of such terms being used as inherently malicious. They're just shorthand references of political system categories.
Please make a video about the diference between vassal and retainer
Ever since I learned the terms of different eras, I’ve just been using that instead. But even those terms don’t necessarily accurately account for how culture is constantly changing.
Feudalism as an idea doesn't hold much water when one starts digging into it. However, I think that you're right to keep using it for the sake of simplicity, though "premodern/early modern" is better.
This is a much bigger discussion on how to communicate. These broad simplyfied terms are often rejected by scholars in favor of proper terminology. This does however tend to veer into the narcisism of small diffrences
I always feel like the term feudal Japan is fair because there’s plenty of words in Japanese that do not have a direct 1:1 translation but instead are translated by their ideas.
Just because they didn’t call it feudalism doesn’t mean the term can’t apply.
Feudalism to me always has 2 key components. Landholders who raise armies and a population that is bound to the land or must perform duties for the landholder.
I guess my way of thinking about this is how I became interested in Japanese history. If a historian came up to me, named a period of Japanese history then tried to give me a deep dive into the details I probably would have lost interest and never pursued the topic further. The terms "feudal" and "medieval" were my gateway into Japanese history which then allowed me to study various time periods in depth.
When talking to friends about Japanese history I'll use "feudal" it's not accurate but it's a familiar enough term that they'll have a very broad understanding about what I'm talking about. And that's fine, they don't have a deeper interest so me giving them a deeper explanation doesn't do them any favours (I've seen the glazed looks when I've tried). If, however, they want to know more, then I can go into a bit more detail.
I guess what I'm saying is "feudal" is a handy, if inaccurate, place holder for people who don't have anything more than a passing interest in the topic and a handy gateway to reel people (like me) into a more in-depth look into Japanese history
Very well explained. I think you hit the topic on the nail describing it as the different structures or social structures in Japan 🗾 this structures and composition can best be described with the different rulings or shogunate. Feudalism in the Way I personally perceive it is a European medieval structures composed of bishops, kings, provinces, land structures, religious interpretación of the bible (Lutheran, Christian, católica, protestan, etc.) This in turn led to the well known feudal 100 year war. (Nothing 🚫 to do with Japan 🗾 structure). If I'm not mistaken Japan social structures at one point was based on two principals Shintoism, and budism ( coming originally from India, and through China) but depending on the ruling period this had to be balanced out as not to create dispute between the two religious beliefs (Shintoism and Budism) the structure of governance was based on the welding of this beliefs. Also depending on the shogunate land had to be distributed evenly as not to create revolts. But yes, I was seldom confused attributing a European medieval historical definition to a different historical evolution of Japan 🗾 it just didn't fit my mental concept when viewing the two. Is just like comparing the knights with the samurai or Shinobi, two different concept and fighting Technics. Thank You for your very interesting video! Very informative and interesting. This video will be a Methanoia in many peoples minds.
Hello, i'm just curious if you will be doing a series also about the bonshin war and meji restoration? :)
They did tend to have a good sense of order and rule to some less extreme high kinds of casualties, collisions, crashes, and jammings
While I agree that using simplified terms is effective in reaching a broader audience, I also believe that history itself is not a simple topic. There are always specific details and events that require an explanation that simplifying simply cannot communicate. So yes, it is useful when communicating to people that may only have a surface level idea of that time but once the said audience is engaged, I think it’s better to discuss individual time periods within the broadly defined “period” as their own respective eras.
As a teacher myself I see the issue of terminology here mostly as a conflict between accuracy and accessibility (or simplicity). We don't want to make discussing history so complicated in pursuit of accuracy, that it is impossible to have a conversation about it unless both speakers are experts.
I think 'decolonizing' from the standpoint of being careful to recognize when using euro centric lense is important, _but_
You have to givr your mainly western audience concepts they can relate to. You can't just teleport in the mileau of another culture. You have to walk there.
Also some concepts may be universal. Feudalism with Japanese Characteristics may be a good way to put it :)
Empire is western term. Kingdom is a western term. Vassal. Yet we are comfortable apying them to Japan and other non western countries even though their meaning is definitely not 100pct the same (just like the Holy Roman Empire was not exactly like the Roman empire which was not like the Byzantine empire)
No matter what any word that is used to encompass anything can be debated in a technical sense. A word like Feudal just allows people to have a conversation about something without a very involved discussion, possible never ending, on agreeable terms and definitions.
As an aside the way Patreon has programed their system has decided my payment method has expired despite my attempts to update. Inability to reach a human means all I get is we are very busy will get back to you whenever we want to. I want to remain one of your patron supporter's and am doing all I can to make that happen. Also, think it's about time for new livestream at least RUclips updated my payment info instantly.
Thank you for the update!
Honestly I didn't even know that it was a issue to people I just used to because it seems to be easier for people to understand because it covers such a wide range of time that if I got more specific most people probably wouldn't understand what I was talking about🤷♂️
This is my dilemma too
Perhaps I’m alone in this, but I tend to think in terms of “medieval Europe” and “feudal Japan”. For me, both concepts depict a vast era wherein tyrants subjugated mass peasantry and robust warriors (knights & samurai) guided by their own idiosyncratic honor codes (chivalry & bushido) worked, killed and died for their respective authoritative powers. It’s less about indicating a particular time and place and more about referencing a great historic mural that spans an age, the medieval and/or feudal period(s). Such are categorical terms, not meant for precise specificity.
I think that creating a bridge of understanding is important. Like I know some periods of Japanese history...particularly Sengoku where my interest first kicked off. Depending on who I am speaking to I may use Fuedal Japan when speaking in broad terms but usually I end up saying something like "Sengoku period around 1560 Nobunaga......" or "during the time of Genji in......" basically making references to periods and time frame together and people seem to respond well to that. I also use examples people might have seen from anime and video games since Japan's historical figures get pulled into these things all the time. I think back to when I first saw the beginning of Onimusha Warlords for example and spurted out "Thats Nobunaga!" RIght before the cut scene said who he was XD. By the way...I would like to join that Discord server for Japanese History.
Saying Feudal Japan does reference a specific political, economic, and social framework. You can say Medieval. But probably the best world be Post-Classical. That is a specific time period, and societies across the world varied greatly during this time.
Feudalism may be an unpopular term in modern historiography, but I don't see how it can be abandoned altogether. In many continental European countries, "the abolition of feudalism" was a specific event associated with the post-Napoleonic period, encompassing broadening rights to land ownership and the removal of sort of unpleasant feudal dues owed by a peasant to the lord. In this sense, I think you can refer to the pre-modern period in Japanese history as "feudalism" in English, since the post-feudal Meiji period was associated with changing land ownership patterns, shifting relationships between the warrior class and peasants, etc. As you mentioned, this is sort of a Marxist interpretation, but it has its uses. Wonderful video.
I personally find the term to be perfectly serviceable. I know that it's an anachronistic European term but to me it represents a technological and sociological stage in the civilization arc. Maybe even an "Iron Age" if you will. Serf farmers, iron/steel weapons, stone castles, noble vs peasant castes, etc. All these components are synonymous with feudalism to me although I understand your mileage will vary. An allegory can be found in India, China, Japan, Africa, the Middle-East and of course Europe. Maybe it's due to my ignorance or brevity of sources, but I can't recall what I would consider "feudal" America. The Aztecs maybe? The development arc seems so different that I'm forced to frame it differently in my mind. Something akin to almost a Classical Period that exists up until Europeans land with breastplates, pikes, horses and guns. I also apologize if I have left out the rich history of feudal Antarctican Penguin society. I'm sure there were some exciting ice jousts before we landed there.
One thing for sure thru Japan history social structure. Farmers always been there and been important part of Japan. Well most will probably say "Samurai "represent Japan, but for me, I think the Rice farmers are the most common view of Japan thru history.
You could say all the same things about "feudal Europe,' which you alluded to. Ironically, I'm going to overgeneralize this entire subject as semantics.
Generalizing a term without giving the context behind it is surely harmful from an academic point of view, yes we understand this.
But having a clear line to emphasize the difference and thus showing the richness of such subject is a good thing in my humble opinion. Like saying European "feudalism" or Japanese "feudalism" by doing this the recipient will be intrigued and if he's is curious enough he'll ask about the difference.
To the truly initiated history buff, this is not a big problem because he'll generally use the period names and year.
I think I'd only say "Feudal Japan" for a highly generalized "this is what I'm calling it briefly and off hand for someone who is not knowledgeable on it at this moment", but in terms of specifics, I would stick with the actual names for the periods since those alone explain shifts in power, and just looking into the title can give you so much detail into that period. "Feudal Japan" really doesn't tell you anything, or give any details of its development outside of "this is before industrialization and enforced Westernization". Which is convenient offhand but is a bit too hand wavy and simplistic if I was engaging in an actual discussion over it.
i do not think its harmfull but it would prefeable if people would understand feudual time as collection of eras not as one thing.
I don't know a lot about history or Japanese history, but by watching this video, I am of the opinion that the word 'feudalism' is a totally justified word, if used carefully.
If in discussion with experts about the eras that practiced 'feudalism', the correct terms associated with that period should be used, because the people in the discussion have an understanding of the topic.
If used in a discussion or lower-end lecture for example, the term 'feudalism' is 100% justified if it's consciously used as an abstract term, to give people the opportunity to understand things on a basic level.
I have never thought of the usage of the word 'feudalism', but after watching this video I think that if it is consciously used in an abstract sense, it's an incredible powerful term that everyone understands. This is very useful in teachings, what humans are built to do in essence.
In all fairness, the world's development speed has to do with technology. Having fashion trends go by decade or year makes more sense in an age where there are more and more to choose from.
I always thought of feudal to mean a time or situation that involved many smaller FEUDS between smaller factions (too small to really be "wars" in the modern sense), at the end of which, the ultimate winner became a NATION. A tournament of sorts for power over all those factions involved...minus a few stragglers of course...like the Scotts, or ANY mountain, swamp, or otherwise geographically isolated people really.
How can 1300-1600 be a period of resemblance knowing that European feudalism began fading in the 12th century already.
I don't see how anything about feudalism, is European or Euro-centric, and applying perfectly well, to a large part of Japanese history, and the history of many other places. One could perhaps argue, that it is used/understood in a couple of different ways, leading to misunderstandings and confusion, but...
As opposed to the terms Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance, which are firmly European, and should never be used to describe the history of any other place, and even within Europe, it must be understood that the starting/ending dates of each, are different in different places, as well as not really being precise.
I have a hard time seeing why this is a problem? Sure it’s a wide brush but Japan was very much a feudal society up until the Meiji period? With domains and Daimyo? I have just always seen it as a very wide way of saying “that time with Samurai”
I personally think it is a useful tool, but when used should be noted for its inaccuracies . for example saying "commonly referred to as feudal japan, though more precisely the edo period" or something similar.
I never thought about it. I say "Feudal Japan" when talking about Samurais and such. It's a lot easier for people to think about that since it's become the norm.
I read an undergrad in history and have been introduced to Marxism as a historical device. I’m not a doctrinal adherent to Marxism by any sense of the word but i often found it useful to employ the technique of Marxism on specific questions and regard the answers it provides as one of several, even only to tease out further questions. As to the grand narrative of feudalism then capitalism then socialism, that I consider a politic or a religion more than a history. 😅
I don't really care what people call things as long as they convey information well enough. Controversies are a bit like conspiracy theories these days, good for people with nothing better to do.
It’s kinda like seeing something fly up in the sky . What is it ? A airplane , good answer . But no definition of propeller vs jet …. Military vs civilization , passenger vs cargo etc etc etc ……. As a quick marker it’s sufficient, as a proper definition , it’s inadequate.
My rough understanding is, if a lord’s land is divided to fiefs, and the warriors who got those fiefs owe military service to the lord, then it’s feudalism. So I think it should be ok to call Japan between kamakura and Momoyama a feudal society…
No you have the right idea. It may get misused but as with many historical topics the danger of 'overcorrecting' is there
Last place I would have expected Karolina aka "Meme Mom" to be cited.
I understand the use of feudalism when dealing with creation of content on RUclips, but I also think you should go through the specifities of the japanese eras you're covering as much as you can at some point. Like how the government worked, the institutions, the economy, the culture. In that sense, feudalism could even come in handy, as you would have a tool for comparison and making it easier for the audience to understand something new from what is more familiar to them. Many civilizations in the world lost their "uniqueness" because of eurocentric terms, like the Aztecs and Incas, whose institutions were compared to Europe's, as it worked with some sort of monarchy too, but in reality was a very different form of monarchical rule.
I find these things interesting. Ultimately all the same issues could be put to the term "Medieval period" as within that is a huge cultural and technological change in ma y different periods depending on which nations you're talking about. Or another way to look at it is that no one in the English speaking world refers to Germany as Deutschland. Everyone projects their own methods of understanding on external entities. It's only natural and in my insignificant opinion shouldn't be seen as an inherently bad thing
Teaching a bit of Japanese history privately, to appeal and motivate students that have no idea, I start by talking about "samurai Japan", because they can get what a samurai is pretty quickly. Then we use "feudal Japan" as we understand its structures and groups, then we talk periods. Start like you are doing marketing, move to history.
The use of feudalism applied to non western cultures or states should not really be controversial. I am a history of the late medieval and early modern Islamic world and there are strong examples of feudal type systems there, where military elites provide protection to commoners in exchange for taxes and working land. The Mamluk iqta and Ottoman timariots are both examples of feudal organization that those societies described in their own words as being feudal. It would be interesting to address this subject from the Japanese perspective by reading sources from the Kamakura or Muromachi period to see how they described social relations and administration.
We in the west sympathize and resonate with the idea of history being driven by the "Great Names", because that's the way our own-i.e.: western- histories are presented.
It feels like any controversy or major complaint about the term feudal Japan is just people crying about cultural appropriation, when even in the west what we would call feudal Europe the dates are also debated and can be broken down into different eras as well, which can be done even further if you go by country (Germany has the 1st Reich in feudal Europe for example).
Feudalism is a form of government so why shouldn't something with a feudal structured government be know as feudal as each country and culture in Europe even did things differently.
Any term can be dissected to the point of irrelevance if indulged. But I don't see how "pre-modern" is a more accurate term than "feudal." It may not make problematic comparisons. But it is utterly devoid of specificity.
I think it is natural to adapt terms specific to one certain aspect to other uses to get a first familirization. As you mention "feudalism" is not even a fixed concept in Europe, neither by time or place. So of course, it is not adequate to describe thoroughly a complete era of Japanese history. Then again, it is a first concept, which sets a specific tone. Just like there are different operas, but they are still operas. Cars can be very different. They are still cars. I do not see the harm. Is it a complete picture? No. However, a person without much knowledge, might at least get a tentative idea. Having not much knowledge they should know that this is only vaguely descriptive and it should be clear that you cannot adequately describe several eras of a country's history with a single term. Does "feudal Germany" exist? No. Germany changed a lot during feudalism. Feudalism is in itself not a concept that stagnated for some centuries, but evolved.
A learned person should on the other hand know even more that the topic is far more complex anyway. So I do not see the harm but using a generalized term as a keyword, which can be used to roughly distinguish between periods, before using other terms to get a higher resolution.
Yo, can you make the history of the ouchi clan?
The title makes this aound like it's gunna be one of those influencer drama videos. Like, "💅oh my gosh guys! You wouldn't _believe_ who the emperor killed next!✨ 💅"
I think it depends. On a broad scale to introduce someone to the concept of pre-westernised Japan, it is fine. But as is obvious, feudalism is more of a Eurocentric concept than an Asian or Japanese one in this case. Therefore I think it is important to add that, while it may be fine to generalise to those who are only getting started, it should not be seen as an ok term, and the appropriate terms should be used for where it works. You wouldn't say, Kamakura England would you, haha?
Lol Eurocentric? Europe adopt feudalism from their Hunnic overlord just because they destroy Roman Empire and replace local tribal order. This is why it can spread in both west and east because both have contact with Eurasian nomad (Japan have their own nomad migration at the same period) but not China, because the Chinese see this concept as abomination.
Why you call it Kamakura England? Did England have a city called Kamakura?
Words, words, words, words...Can't live with 'em, can't speak without 'em. Japanese feudalism and Western European Feudalism are different. This is why they are labeled "Japanese" and "Western European". Do these words define what these times and places were actually like? No, because words don't define anything, they are defined, and by other words. Words point in a general direction, using better words, or adding additional words might be more precise, but you can't get past the fact that the listener has to use their own brain to understand what they hear.
Perhaps a useful work-around: "What has been called the Japanese Feudal Period..."
just as it takes all sorts of people to make the world work the way it does we cant expect carpenters to understand the lingo used by a historian. if we disregard the concepts that allow the masses to understand more, then all we will achieve is further separation across borders.
Does the "Premodern Japan" even make sense when Japan from the Meiji Restoration until 1945 is very different from post WW2 Japan? I don't consider "modern Japan" as starting until after Japan surrendered to America.
As with all words it really is a case of how you use them.
If you are trying to explain pre-edo-period Japan to a westerner that has no idea about japanese history I would argue using the term as a BRIDGE to help make mental connections and ease understanding definately has merit and a place. While it is a oversimplification, true, to equate a Daimyo to a noble like a count and or a duke that has an elevated class of fighters like knights, the Samurai, under his command it can help ease somebody with no knowledge in. We do this in languages all the time, using comparisons and analogues to explain things.
I personally find the idea of outright "banning" terms counter-productive and harmful for precisely that reason.
Imagine, if you will, for a moment that we outlaw the use of "God/Gods" when comparing religious teachings because some faiths are monotheistic, some are polytheistic and others don't fall in either category. Trying to explain theological concepts starts becoming needlessly harder.
Besides, the more one goes into detail when learning about a subject the more one is able to stop using more general terms and use the more fitting and specialized ones.
But by drawing paralells between cultures and ideas we bridge the gap of knowledge and understanding easier.
I've went from using Feudal Japan to referring to the various periods over the last few years but I still use Feudal when explaining things to others like my mother for instance who knows nothing about japanese historical periods. Likewise I've referred to Samurai as something like the Knights we had here in centuries past and Daimyos as Noble Lords that have lands but are vassals to the Shogun, etc.
I tried explaining it at first only using the "correct" terms but she quickly lost track in the barrage of terms.
But the moment I gave her something to equate it to that she already knows about the amount of constant questions she had dropped substantially.
...anyways, this has turned a bit into a ramble.
Those are just my "2 cents".
History writers seem to ignore, though my personal experience of 60 years says a lot about how places change, is Demography. More peeps, less peeps change things. How many young males, military age, laborers, makes a big diff, as well as number of child bearing aged women. Guess historians avoid topics they don't have enough sources to cite, but, they can guess.
Isn't pre-modern just as blanket a tern as feudal?
'Feudal' Britain, France, 'Germany', Russia, etc all had their differences, but they are unified by core themes, which feudal Japan also shares
I can see an upset about calling say the Edo period 'feudal Japan', but I see no issue with calling the Sengoku Jidai, and even prior to maybe the Genpei wars, as Japan's feudal era
I don't really think it is that harmful, understanding is the most part.
I will say those Marxist historians didn't sound too sound too smart though, like they completely ignore stuff that happened and the differences in tons of countries and act like everything is the same. Also shouldn't the term "euro-centric" be "anglo-centric" if we really wanted to go down that route.
I mean in my country we had another system so we use other words to describe it.
They sound far more ideological than anyone interested in historical research.
I think if you are talking to people who are trying to get into it or just don't know much, it would be easier to just say feudal. But, if you are talking to other Japanese historians, then I think it should be completely fine to use the period names, seeing as they should know them. At the very least, some of them anyway.
sure its an over generalization but gives an idea of the social characteristics of the era, you'd have to be very thick to make it mean its just like feudal Europe, the term works cause it gives an idea of the kind of society and common sense tells you it must have had a ton of unique characteristics. The whole controversy feels like part of the hate everything from Europe trend of late.
Sure individual period names would be most correct but most people would be lost just like a biologist demanding you use the correct family name for each obscure group of animals or talking about a species by its latin name, part of comunicating is adapting to the context you are in.
I really appreciate this video. It is a very interesting and important topic, that is overlooked.
I love how they looked down at merchants, because they benefited from the production of others, rather than their own.
everybody has to learn using their frame of reference. if youre familiar with european feudalism and other european concepts you might have to equate those somewhat to foreign concepts at first to understand the basics of the ideas. but once youve reached that understanding you're ready to go to the further understanding of how it's different. its part of the learning process. if we say that this is unacceptable and one must understand these concepts as their own distinct ideas without referencing the body of knowledge they already have then you are doing the subject in question a GREAT disservice because not everyone has the same innate intelligence or ability to grasp certain ideas and using a frame of reference helps them. without using frame of reference, people arent going to rise to the challenge of really understanding these unique ideas like you think they should, theyre more likely to just not put extra effort into understanding them at all at remain mostly ignorant. is that better? ignorance leads to distrust leads to resentment quite easily. there's a wide gulf between people who are wrong but dont mean to be and dont want to be and people who are wrong who know they are and dont care or know they are and want to be. but if you say there isnt a difference between the 2 then eventually you will be right. we have to allow people to be mistaken as long as they arent malevolent in their intent.
is it surprising that a "eurocentric" mindset predominates most of 1st world culture today when the cultures outside of this have greatly endeavored to keep their society and culture away from "foreign barbarians"? you cant have a secret that you dont share but expect the world to know.
Then what should we call it?
That was a really interesting video for me. Thank you for it
If taxes were paid in services and goods or if lords owned land as a means of control rather than money, then its a feudal system. Its not to say Feudalism didn't have money but services and goods were more critical as money couldn't always buy them. This was due in part that money was an unnecessary middleman when you needed the farmers and fighters on your land to farm and fight.
i don't think we should dumb down concepts for those who don't understand them, if i say "heian period japan" and someone doesn't know what i mean then i'd rather explain it to them than say "medieval japan" and leave them just as dumb as before
I think it's a bit of a fuss over nothing. Fuedalism, as in, soldiers and farmers owing service to their lords, was there. It wasn't the only thing that was happening. Cities existed as a kind of microstate. And how the service worked varied across time and space.