“There are some who would say it is people like myself who are responsible for the terrible things that happened to this nation of ours. As far as I am concerned, I freely admit I made many mistakes. I accept that much of what I did was ultimately harmful to our nation, that mine was part of an influence that resulted in untold suffering for our own people. I admit this. You see, Dr Saito, I admit this quite readily.” In this quote, Masuji Ono admits that he took part in leading Japan into World War II by being patriotic. He was loyal to his country as his pupils are loyal to him. Loyalty is a major theme throughout this book. It is loyalty that led Ono to paint patriotic paintings that liberated the people to support this movement towards war. It is also through this loyalty that split the generations, whether it was unintentional or not. The younger generation despises the elders for destroying the reputation and prosperity of their country.
It seems to me that this book questions the nature of loyalty. How loyal must one be? According to this book, the extent of loyalty has caused incidents. The first is the influence of war, even though Japan shouldn’t have gotten involved. Many people from the young generation believe a war was pointless and that Japan shouldn’t have been involved. The second is the split between the generations. The younger generation resent the older generation for influencing the war. If it weren’t for the many paintings of misleading patriotism, Japan would have never joined the war. Thus, Japan would not have lost its prestige and honor. The third is that Ono has lost the respect of Mr. Kuroda due to the fact that Mr. Kuroda blames Ono for causing the war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Loyalty was among the most respectful traits a Japanese person had during the time. Loyalty was brought up to show that even though Japanese people were losing the war, they still fought for their Emperor to the death. This caused the Japanese to fight fiercely during the war, but as we see later on in the book, even the people begin to doubt themselves. Their tradition seems to vanish. Kuroda and Shintaro would leave Ono and go with their own beliefs. Yet, instead of Ono despising his former pupils, he tends to be calm and let them mature in their own way and create their own path. Success after the war seemed only to come by through disloyalty and disrespect. Its unfortunate that this had to happened, but what other choice did the Japanese have? I don't agree that both of Ono's pupils would not still live from Ono's teachings, but it was their only way out. Ono lived his traditional and patriotic life as was expected. New things were expected from the Japanese after the war. To rise from the ashes and continue forward was the option that would eventually lead Japan to a better and stable society.
ReplyDeleteLoyalty in this book is described in instances when pupils under the wings of their masters follow only their teachings and skills . Masters see a pupil as a traitor if they decide to "explore new avenues". This is contradictory because the masters such as Ono-san encourage their pupils to always question their elders which leaves the subject of loyalty in another realm? Loyalty can mean following someone blindly in the case of the pupils. I would like to pose this questions, which I have my own opinion of, "If the Japanese had succeeded in conquering the West and had not been occupied by the United States would the pupils still be loyal to Ono?"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the loyalty and admiration the pupils had for Ono-san was very immense that if things would have gone different they would have Ono as a hero and honor him.
You bring up a good point because loyalty was a major part of Japanese culture. If you were disloyal you would be severely punished. But as we see with Kuroda and Sasaki, the culture is changing as more time passes on from the war. They are perfect examples of being “disloyal” in the perspective of the old culture; but to themselves they are just changing with time. It doesn’t have anything to do with being disloyal. But Ono doesn’t stop them from being different. He let’s them do it, which is evidence that he is questioning the extent of loyalty.
ReplyDelete