Jump to content

Talk:Black Ships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Factual questions

[edit]
  • I'd like to make links to articles for each of the ships named here, but it looks like we have articles on several ships with those names, and I don't know which ship, if any of them, is the right one in each case.
  • In what year did Perry first arrive?
     
    • 1853. The first visit was brief and inconclusive; he promised to return a year later. When he came back, he brought some of the most powerful ships in the American navy at the time. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 12:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Are coal-powered ships and steam-powered ships really the same thing? If this is an inaccuracy in translation or some such, we could mention it briefly.
     
  • Is the senryu's author known? If so, we should give the name, and if not, we should say so. Also, does it have a three-line format? I think we should use it if so.
     
    • Actually its most common form is five lines, in a 5-7-5-7-7 format. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 12:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is it true that the Portugese were allowed to trade with Japan? "Commodore Perry's superior military force enabled him to negotiate a treaty allowing American trade with Japan, ending a 200-year period in which trading with Japan was only allowed to the Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese and a few other small groups."

This conflicts with Dejima#History. Can somebody provide evidence of this? --- 1) "On July 8, 1853, the U.S. Navy steamed four warships into the bay at Edo and under threat of attack demanded that Japan open to trade with the West."

2)"In particular, Kurofune refers to Mississippi, Plymouth, Saratoga, and Susquehanna of the Perry Expedition for the opening of Japan, 1852-1854, that arrived on July 14, 1853 at Uraga Harbor (part of present-day Yokosuka) in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan under the command of United States Commodore Matthew Perry."

Does this not seem confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.20.80 (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The senryu

[edit]

Here's how the section about the senryu read before I edited it:

The surprise and confusion these ships brought are best described in this Senryu.
Jōkisen ippai nonde yoru-mo nemurezu
(I drank a cup of jō-kisen(costly brand of tea), and now cannot sleep thinking about money I paid)
(Seeing many steam-powered ships(jōki-sen), they (samurai) must be having sleepless night thinking about what to do)

I assume my revision preserves the meaning, but it was kind of difficult to follow, so correct it if I'm wrong. —Triskaideka 19:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The revision is incorrect. This senryu is a pun; both of these are literal translations of the Japanese text. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 11:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The revision does make things much clearer. I don't know the poem, but it is probably wrong to describe it as a senryu, which is the humorous counterpart to the 17 syllable haiku. This poem is probably better labeled as a kyōka (literally "mad verse"), which is the humorous counterpart to the usually 31 syllable waka or tanka, that has been around since the Man'yōshū Imperial poetry anthology (c.759). The only other place [1] that I found this poem discussed on the internet described it as a "tanka" (which a word that only became used in the 20th century), so kyōka should replace senryu in the description. After a more diligent Google search, I found a couple of more references to the poem, always refering to it as a "comic tanka" or kyōka (often using various non-Hepburn transliterations of the word). This webpage in particular would be useful in helping to expanding the wikipedia Black Ship article [2]. gK 05:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I only revised the explanation of the poem. At that point it looked a little more like a senryu. What's there now is Eequor's revision of the poem itself. I don't know anything about the poem except what I've read here; I was just trying to make the existing interpretation intelligible in English. —Triskaideka 16:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moving this page

[edit]

I moved this page from The Black Ships to Black Ships. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Mateo SA | talk June 29, 2005 05:10 (UTC)

Paper houses

[edit]

Sorry, but this article is (in my opinion) not clear enough about the seriousness of the threat, the outright moral wrong and the consequences. The japaneese cities were build to a large extend of paper and wood. So the threat was actually to burn whole cities down. All the important cities were located by the sea ... so while at first glance 4 ships might not be very impressive the in fact were a very serious threat. I believe that this should be illustrated much more clearly. Going from there I miss any answer to the question why the U.S. undertook these missions and how they could be moraly justified. Wikipedia calls for neutral language but certainly a crime is a crime and should be called what it is. Because only few years later we have Japan involved in some very serious wars, ending with the Second World War. There can be no doubt that continued isolation as wished by Japan would have avoided these developments. So please put these historical facts in context and make these things more obvious. We cannot improve this world if we attempt to hide former mistakes instead of learning from them. JB--92.195.68.232 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black Ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese festival

[edit]

I find it rather surprising that in this article and that of Commodore Perry, there is no mention of the annual Japanese festival at Shimoda in honour of the arrival of Perry and the Black Ships, known as Kurofune Matsuri “Blackship Festival”. A google search on the name indicates it has been held annually since 1943. Surely this merits inclusion as much as dubious stories about a minor geisha who apparently suicided after working for Townsend Harris, or dubious links to Madama Butterfly (see articles on all 3 - Perry, Harris and this Black Ships one)! Ptilinopus (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article contradicts itself, regarding 1639

[edit]

The intro implies that Western trade (which had mainly been with the Portuguese, up until this point) continued after 1639.

'In 1639, after suppressing a rebellion blamed on the Christian influence, the ruling Tokugawa shogunate retreated into an isolationist policy, the Sakoku. During this "locked state", contact with Japan by Westerners was restricted to Dejima island at Nagasaki.'

The next section says that this trade *ended* in 1639.

'Portuguese traders and Jesuit missionaries faced progressively tighter restrictions, and were confined to the island of Dejima before being expelled in 1639.'

I don't know which is correct, but I have a feeling that it's the latter, and that that portion of the intro needs to be clarified/corrected. WikiAlto (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little late, but just for the edification of anyone else who finds themselves here, both statements are accurate. Dejima was originally built to host the Portuguese, but as they were linked to the Catholicism which the shogunate wanted to stamp out, they were evicted completely in 1639. (They even tried to send a mission in 1640 to broach the idea of reopening trade and the shogun promptly had their ship burned and over 50 of them executed.) However, the Dutch, who were able to convince the shogun they could separate business and religion due to their Protestant affiliation, were moved into the now-vacant Dejima instead, where they operated continuously as the only Western traders until Perry did his thing. - Hargrimm | Θ 08:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously wrong claim that Japanese government did not know about Opium War and the outcome and treaties signed until 1853 or 1854

[edit]

Why a source was citing "Nishiyama, Kazuo, Doing Business With Japan: Successful Strategies for Intercultural Communication. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 2–3." for the claim Japan did not know about Opium War and the outcome and treaties signed until 1853 or 1854, this is strongly contradicted by other available sources including ones that apparently cover the period in much more detail. (And either was a misinterpretation of the source or the source was simply mistaken on this point.)

"Akamatsu, Paul (1972). Meiji 1868: Revolution and Counter Revolution in Japan. Harper and Row" specifically noted on pages 82-83 that Japan's government was getting updates on what was occurring in China and the situation as early as 1839 and was specifically receiving updates from communications with the Chinese and the Dutch, and in fact promptly reacted to the eventual outcome by 1841-42 "with stupefaction." The source notes that there was in fact an immediate reaction and some effort at particularly military reform even if the immediate impact of those efforts was limited. (Pages 82-85)

The same book notes that in 1844 the Dutch government sent the Japanese government a note specifically referencing the defeat of China and advised them to abandon their closed limited trade procedures to a more general open trade policy (page 86).

The idea Japan did not know earlier is also contradicted by how the same book notes earlier that as part of their earlier agreements to still trade with Japan under restricted conditions "Every year Chinese and Dutch had to send the governor of Nagasaki bulletins on the principal facts of international life." The Japanese government also examined these bulletins carefully to keep up to date with what was happening in the outside world (page 43). That these sources would not have provided some awareness of the Opium War earlier does not make sense.

It is also worth noting that the current Perry Expedition page with its own sources makes no mention of knowledge of the Opium War being a new revelation after first visit by Perry. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perry_Expedition&oldid=1122138347

It is possible many of the details of the Opium War were still news to some degree for some Japanese government officials who had not been paying attention, or further information about the details during this period did influence decision making. However the idea this was truly new information simply does not make sense given what other sources say of the period. Why I edited the article to be more accurate concerning this issue, I am still leaving the older citation in place for the moment in case it backs some of the other claims made in that part of the article even though it appears to contain serious misinformation concerning this specific issue. Mordoch66 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Ships&oldid=1200118056"