Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf71rd$bu50m$1@ID-105084.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Richard Thieme wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bf1eo2$9oohg$1@ID-105084.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> Richard Thieme wrote:
> >>> Ken <dvdfan9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:c5fec6f.0307140531.332edc86@posting.google.com...
> >>>> Richard Thieme wrote:
> >>>>> Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Actually I didn't jump into this thread just for the pleasure of
> >>> jousting with Kevin. Having read much of the book in question, I
> >>> have not had the same reaction as many of its (foreign) critics,
> >>> and when
> >>> I have attempted to discuss this with them, I have simply been told
> >>> that I have gone bamboo (the emotional reaction we saw by someone
> >>> else on a recent thread.
> >>
> >> Yes, such comments about "going bamboo" are simply dismissive.
> >
> > Depends on the situation, and whether the subsequent justification is
> > cogent or relevant. It may be true and relevant, true but irrelevant,
> > untrue but relevant, or untrue and irrelevant.
>
> I can think of no instance in which telling an opponent that he has "gone
> bamboo", a phrase that I had never heard until you mentioned it BTW,

Well you learned a new phrase. I first heard it about 14 years ago. I
actually thought it was quite humorous at the time.

> would
> be relevant.

I thought that it was quite relevant in the situation I heard it. But I
won't bore you with the details. You have already complained one too many
times about my bringing in tangential issues.

> It's an ad hominem that tells us nothing about the worth of
the
> opponent's position.
>
> >> They are
> >> almost as dismissive of saying of a professor who has written about
> >> factual and methodological errors in the Tsukuru Kai textbook, "I
> >> hope he isn't another case of someone with low
> >> level language skills working off of a bad translation and relying
> >> on either radical marxists, or Chinese and Korean sources to tell
> >> him what he thinks the Japanese must be saying in their textbooks."
> >
> > That is not dismissive.
>
> No, really, it is. It tells me that your default assumption

Haven't assumed anything. Which you would realize if you were reading for
content.

> of someone who
> has written about factual and methodological errors in the Tsukuru Kai
> textbook is someone with low level language skills working off of a bad
> translation and relying on either radical Marxists, or Chinese and Korean
> sources to tell him what he thinks the Japanese must be saying in their
> textbooks.

No it doesn't.
My statement tells you what I hope
it is not. No more, no less. And as evidence for that I would comment that I
have never accused you of doing the same in this thread. Primarily because
the points you are raising are different than the points raised by those to
whom
I have referred where they essentially quote things like the following:

http://www.jca.apc.org/~itagaki/history/appeal0620.htm

You need to scroll down to the bottom to get the list of errors. I am not
going to get into a discussion of those, however. I have read them, read the
rebuttals, I thought some of the rebuttals were valid and some weren't. But
I am going to be working around the clock for the next two weeks, so I will
have to leave you to your own devices.

> Very Rothwellian.

I assume you are referring to Jed Rothwell over in sci.lang.japan. But of
course he has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are going to have to
do better than that to get a rise out of me.

>
> > Jaded and jaundiced, yes but not dismissive.
> > I thank you for the cite and will look at it.
>
> I will wait for your comments.

You will have to wait for a long time. I just got hit with about 400 pages
of work. Anyway, do you know where the paper is available, or do I need to
write to Professor Segal?

> I'd better pack a few hoagies.

What are hoagies?

>
> > And I am open to the
> > possibility that I am the one reading the book with a bias and not
> > others (a sort of desire on my part to criticize the critic).
> >
> >>
> >> I've never met Dr. Segal, but I am pretty sure Stanford University
> >> requires of its history Ph.D. candidates proficiency in the
> >> appropriate foreign language.
> >
> > I think you are being naive.
>
> What about?
>
> > Or rather I do not believe that the
> > level of proficiency required by a Ph.D. program is good enough for
> > serious work within the language.
>
> "A" Ph.D. program? Please confine your remarks to Stanford's graduate
> history department.
>
> > Some Ph.D.'s have this ability
> > before they get qualified, some acquire it after they receive their
> > qualification, and some don't seem to think it is important (and
> > depending on the situation it may not be). Ever heard Reischauer's
> > Japanese? I have. It was not particularly impressive.
>
> I've never heard it and I won't unless I decide to dust off my Ouija
board.

There are videotapes of him speaking Japanese. You might see one sometime.

> Could you point to some errors or flaws in his historical writings

His historical writings are not the issue. And you accuse me of bringing in
red herrings? I don't have any problem in saying that someone can be a quite
good historian without having good language skills, other critical skills
come into play, including the ability to judge the biases of those upon whom
you rely. Anyway his specialty was on Ennin, and not modern Japan.

But yes, for what it is worth, I would believe Reischauer's comments on
Ennin to be of more merit (at least historical merit) than the following:

「慈覚・智証・短才にして 二人の身は当山に居ながら 心は東寺の弘法に同意するかの
故に 我が大師には背いて 始めて叡山に真言宗を立てぬ・日本亡国の起り是なり」

Even though the writer of that clearly had better classical Japanese
language skills than Reischauer (just in case you are unaware, Ennin is 慈覚
in the above. Yes I know that the above quote has been rendered as a 現代訳)

> that are
> solely due to his unimpressive spoken Japanese?

I see. You seem to be one of those people who believes that "spoken
Japanese" and "written Japanese" are two different languages, and one can be
fluent in one without the other. And you accuse me of being "Rothwellian"?
Go back to berating people about Romanji and Kanakana.

Anyway, I doubt that you will understand the following, but here goes.

We are talking about a modern book about Japanese history. In
order to read that, you need to be comfortable reading modern Japanese. And
I mean comfortable here, and not just able to do it if you have to. I have
certainly had professors whose fluency in both modern and classical
Japanese awed me (Kate Nakai at Jochi was one. She used to correct Japanese
students reading of Koten in class. She gave me some breaks because she knew
I was struggling). But a Ph.D. is no guarantee of that capability. And yes
a good command of modern Japanese is relevant in this case for two reasons.

The first is that we are talking about a modern book. Written in a modern
language that is spoken by real people. I have yet to meet a westerner who
speaks well who cannot also read well. And yes my standard for speaking well
means being comfortable with the type of Japanese that educated people
normally use.

I have found that the converse is also true. I have yet to meet a westerner
who can read well
without also being able to speak well (Keene may well be the exception to
the
rule. I heard him for about an hour one night on TV. Despite his almost
comic accent, he did in fact seem to have a very good vocabulary and ability
to use terms. It was quite weird, but it makes me think that this is at
least theoretically possible).

The second reason is that most of the dispute is centered in Japan, and of
course Korea and China. I don't speak either of those languages, although I
would like to learn at some time. It is a dispute that is currently going
on, and in order to understand it, you need to ask the people on the other
side what their issues are. Or at least read their comments. I believe that
Ethan Segal is probably doing that. I would note, however, that at least
from the web his specialty appears to be medieval Japan.

>
> > Ditto for
> > Donald Keene (albeit he is a literature professor).
>
> Again, I give you a big "so what?" Perhaps my original statement was not
> precise enough for you, but the foreign language requirement is generally
> one of reading proficiency.

And from what I have heard not that high of a level. But I could be wrong.

> This is due to the nature of historical
> research. The historian cannot pick up his telephone and give Tokugawa
> Iemitsu a call.

Irrelevant to discussing a junior high school textbook.

> Emory did extend their proficiency requirement to spoken
> proficiency in my case, but this was because they knew about my DeLorean.

What does DeLorean have to do with this?

>
> I guess I have to face the fact that I don't know anything about the
> Japanese statutes that I have been researching.

Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. I can't say either way.

> This is because they are
> written in 文語体, and I don't speak 文語.

Or might not yet have gotten comfortable reading it. Or might not have read
the case law (yes case law is important even here in Japan), or might simply
be too lazy to look up 贓物ノ授受 );

> Of course, no one else does by
> definition, so I guess no one can truly understand them. I think that you
> have happened upon a major flaw in the Japanese legal system:

Well I have seen foreign attorneys who have seriously misread Japanese law,
which has cost them a lot of time. The most obvious case (although not of
violation) being the Gaiben problem of the late 70s
and early 80s (you might want to look up Rexford Coleman's take on this. It
is in the old UW Japan Law Bulletin series). I have also seen cases that
resulted in their being in
violation, but no I am not at liberty to discuss these.

> no one can
> understand the statutes*!

You might be surprised at how well many Japanese attorneys, even younger
ones, can orally voice 文語体. Anyway, I would take their commentary above
yours any day. But yes even attorneys sometimes make mistakes.

> My professor of Roman history also must have
been
> talking out of his ass, because his spoken Latin was for shit.
>
> *yes, I know that some are written in 現代語.
>
> >> That was the policy at Emory's history department when I was a
> >> grad student there (the requirement also applied to M.A.
> >> candidates), but perhaps I have erroneously assumed that this was
> >> the norm for graduate history departments. You could always give him
> >> a call at Michigan State University and confirm his language skills
> >> for yourself if you were so inclined.
> >
> > Who knows I may meet him sometime. But I doubt it will take that.
>
> Correct. All it would take is an email or phone call.
>
> > Reading the paper should be enough. I have found that those people
> > who conduct research in the manner that I derided tend to make the
> > same mistakes, grammatical errors and misreadings, mainly because
> > their sources are pretty much the same (or the sources of their
> > sources if you work back far enough in the bibliography), which lets
> > you know that they are not doing their own work. Which really is what
> > matters, not so much if they _can_ read and comprehend the source
> > text, but if they in fact take the trouble instead of relying on the
> > work of others.
>
> Could you mention those hallmark mistakes here before you read the paper?
> I'd hate for you to raise ad hoc objections once you've read it.

The objections can only be ad hoc, because if I have them they will be based
on the paper as I read it. As for what you hate or do not hate, at this
point that is not my concern

>
> >> I concede that he may not have the historical expertise of
> >> Kobayashi Yoshinori.
> >
> > Maybe he does and maybe he does not. The judgement in the David
> > Irving libel suit after all admitted that he was a "brilliant
> > military historian" and not a few historians in that field commented
> > on his tremendous research skills, even though the guy is clearly a
> > nut.
>
> Whoosh.
>

Thank you. You are not the only one on this group who can play dumb to make
a point. I
have done it several times with you, and each time I have wondered if you
understood. In any event, please consider why I would have mentioned David
Irving in reference to Kobayashi Yoshinori, although in fact this reference
was an insult to David Irving. At least he, I have heard, has the language
skills to do his own research. Kobayashi does not. At least not in English.
I have heard some of his analysis of US government documents during WWII,
and he made some crucial mistakes which I do not think he would have made if
he had decent English ability. I have no idea about any ability he may have
in Chinese.

> > (snip)
> >
> >>> Kevin struck me as one person who could
> >>> actually read the book and point out the errors he thought he had
> >>> found.
> >>
> >> I saw your post this morning so I took my copy of the Tsukuru Kai
> >> textbook to work today. I did some reading during my lunch hour, and
> >> here are a few more errors that I "think" I found:
> >>
> >> Page 212:
> >> The section is entitled 「アジアで最初の近代憲法」, which strikes me as
> > odd.
> >> After all, why would a Japanese history textbook devote a section to
> >> the Ottoman Constitution of 1876? I read on, and it then became
> >> evident that the authors of the textbook are under the impression
> >> that the 1889 Meiji Constitution was the first modern constitution
> >> in Asia. I can only ascribe this mistaken belief to one or more of
> >> the following:
> >> 1. The authors had never heard of the Ottoman Constitution
> >> 2. For some reason, the authors have decided that the Ottoman
> >> Constitution was not a constitution
> >> 3. The authors have a very weird definition of "Asia"
> >> 4. The authors have a definition of "modern" that begins sometime
> >> after 1876 but before 1889
> >
> > Actually to answer your question below this was news to me. Thank you
> > for informing me. Of course you did not state that while the Ottoman
> > Constitution was introduced in December of 1876, the parliament was
> > dissolved in less than a year and the constitution was suspended in
> > 1878. It was not restored until 1908.
>
> Yes, that's true, yet entirely irrelevant to the incorrect claim regarding
> Japan under the Meiji Constitution, "アジアで最初の議会をもつ立憲国家とし
て
> 出発した" Thus, there was no need to mention it.
>
> > Not exactly a rousing success,
> > and thus the statement しかし、これによって日本は、本格的な立憲政治は欧
米
> 以外には無理であ
> > ると言われた時代に、is not as strange as it might seem.
>
> I never objected to that part of the sentence. The section that I objected
> to was "アジアで最初の議会をもつ立憲国家として出発した" You rightfully
place
> a great deal of emphasis on reading comprehension, so I am surprised that
> you tripped over this point.
>
> > Of course that
> > brings up the question of whether Japan had a 本格的な立憲政治 even with
> the
> > constitution, but the same applied to the United Kingdom and indeed to
> > Prussia as well.
>
> Since I never voiced objection to that part of the sentence, the question
> has not been raised.

Sorry. Since we were discussing problems in a book I thought you might be
interested in the problems that I felt it had. Having read it a little more
closely I have found what I think are a few errors myself, but I won't
trouble you with them. You can be happy knowing just what you know and not
learning anything from anybody else.


>
> > The next question is whether or not the Ottoman empire was in アジア
(not
> > necessarily Asia, although Kojien and Shogakkan agree with you).
>
> Don't forget 大辞林. It agrees with me, too. Imagine that.

Nothing surprising about that.

>
> > I
> > was going to get into the denotative/connotative dispute but I will
> > leave that because then we are faced with the question of whether
> > indeed Japan is in アジア. Certainly some of my clients seem to think
> > that it is not.
>
> I have no idea who your clients are, so I am unable to comment on their
> qualifications to comment upon the field of geography. If your experience
is
> anything like mine, you have no doubt found that Japan is either not a
part
> of Asia or the pinnacle of Asian-ness, depending on which way the wind is
> blowing.
>
> > In any event, Istanbul is primarily in Europe (yes I know about
> > Uskudar),
>
> Yes, it is. I think it is wonderful that you know about Uskudar, but did
you
> also know that over the centuries the Ottoman Empire came to extend beyond
> Istanbul's city limits? That's probably a silly question for me to ask.

I am sorry that you did not know where Istanbul is located. Maybe a better
knowledge of geography would assist your reading comprehension.

> After all, you do know a surprising bit of information about the Ottoman
> Empire for someone who had never heard of its constitution.

I did have European history, but it was many years ago. One forgets these
things, and I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the class (yes our
European history course did cover the Ottoman Empire, albeit briefly).

>
> > and the Ottoman empire was still regarded as an albeit
> > failing, European power (remember the "sick man of Europe"?). In 1876
> > the Ottoman empire still held Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and
> > Albania in Europe (Serbia was a lot larger then), and Egypt and
> > Tunisia in Africa. So saying that the Ottoman Constitution is a
> > constitution in Asia is not the whole story.
>
> All you need to do to debunk me is tell me the continent(s) of the parts
of
> the Ottoman Empire that were not in Europe or Africa.

Sorry you see Europe and Africa as irrelevant to the rest of the world.

> The link below is a
> map of the Ottoman Empire, 1798-1923, which I think is an appropriate map
to
> use to see the empire as it was at the time of the 1876 constitution.
> http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Ottoman.jpg
>
> Happy hunting.

I see you missed my point.

>
> >> Last paragraph of page 214:
> >> There is the sentence 「これによって日本は、本格的な立憲政治は欧米以外
は
> 無
> > 理
> >> であると言われていた時代に、アジアで最初の議会をもつ立憲国家として出発
し
> >> た。」 The section, 「アジアで最初の議会をもつ立憲国家として出発した」
is
> >> the fruit of page 212's poisonous tree. A parliament met under the
> >> Ottoman Constitution in 1877.
> >>
> >> These are not passages that are problematic due to simply being
> >> misleading, as the passages I previously quoted were. These passages
> >> are objectively incorrect. I really wonder how this came to be. I'm
> >> not sure how many trained historians were involved in creating the
> >> text, but I know they had at least one 漫画家, after all. How could
> >> they go wrong?
> >
> > I do not have any problem with a 漫画家 participating in the authorship
> > of a book. The other authors are listed on the back page, and if you
> > are interested I would think that with a little googling you could
> > find out their backgrounds.
>
> No need to Google. I know that you put a great deal of emphasis on
> qualifications,

You are the one who is emphasizing qualifications. Maybe you are the one who
has "gone bamboo." Actually I feel that qualifications should be treated
with scepticism. Even
the best can make mistakes, and there is no reason to blindly accept or deny
what someone says because he has or does not have a Ph.D.

> as indicated by your jaded and jaundiced of Prof. Segal's
> paper,

Getting emotional are we? You left out a word there. That is not like you.
Maybe you are feeling just a wee bit insecure (see below).

>  so I am quite certain that you are familiar with the qualifications
> of its authors. Therefore, I am sure you won't mind indulging me.

I am not that familiar with the qualifications
of those who wrote the text. I admit that I should look them up since you
asked me to, and since you are being kind enough to share your thoughts. But
unfortunately, I just got slammed with work, so it will be quite a while.

FWIW the academic backgrounds of at least some of them are in the 役員・理事
紹介 section at

http://www.tsukurukai.com/

>
> >>> I dunno if he expects to continue this thread or has decided that he
> >>> has something better to do. The latter is quite fine of course.
> >>> After all this is (or is not) Usenet.
> >>
> >> I hadn't planned on it due to the dismissive "low level language
> >> skills"
> >
> > Is using "due to" in this sense accepted writing now? My edition of
> > Strunk and White says that it is not (actually this is a real
> > question. My language skills may have become antediluvian as a result
> > of too many years outside of the United States). And see above
> > regarding the dismissive part.
>
> The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.  1993.
>
> due to, because of, owing to
>
> Due to and owing to mean just what because of means. All three are
> prepositions. Owing to fought and won its way to respectability a good
while
> ago, and now due to has almost won its battle, although there is a residue
> of conservative unhappiness over it when it does not follow a linking
verb,
> as in "He arrived late, due to a flat tire." Some Edited English and
> Oratorical speech will still avoid such uses, but at all other levels all
> three locutions are Standard: "Because of [owing to, due to] his having
> sprained his ankle, he walked with a cane." "Because of [owing to, due to]
> his sprained ankle, he walked with a cane."
>
>
> The American Heritage Book of English Usage.
>
> A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English.  1996.
>
> 3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints
>
> § 107. due to
>
> Due to has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition like
> owing to, but some critics have insisted that due should be used only as
an
> adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say "The concert was
> canceled due to the rain" but acceptable to say "The cancellation of the
> concert was due to the rain," where due continues to function as an
> adjective modifying cancellation. This seems a fine point, however, and
> since due to is widely used and understood, there seems little reason to
> avoid using it as a preposition.

Thanks. It appears that my language use is outdated. "Due to" in this sense
still grates on me, however.

>
>
> >> comment, but as the thread is continuing I felt compelled to reply.
> >> You said that you had read most of the text, so I took that to mean
> >> that you might not have read pages 212-214, thereby giving you the
> >> benefit of the doubt. If you have read pages 212-214, I can only
> >> assume that one or more of numbers 1-4 above apply to you as well.
> >
> > You don't have to assume anything. I'll tell you right out.
> >
> > 1.    I didn't read the book that closely, and this did not pop out
> > at me.
>
> That was my mistake. I presumed that a person who challenged me to
indicate
> errors in a given book had given said book more than a precursory reading.
I
> guess I was being naive again.

Now I see where you are coming from. I didn't mean to challenge you. I meant
to ask you. I suspected that you might have a different take on the book
than I did and I was interested in your thoughts. I am, however, beginning
to lose interest.

>
> > 2.    I did not know about the Ottoman Constitution of 1876
>
> Perhaps a knowledge of history would better enable you to evaluate the
> merits of history textbooks.

Two can play that game. Perhaps a better knowledge of Japanese would better
enable you to understand what the book said.

You are the one who skipped out on the WWII section when I simply queried if
you might possibly have misread something. I am beginning to believe that,
despite my prior impression, you are afraid that the low level language
skills comment does apply to you (or rather that you have an emotional
inability to reread something and admit that you might have misunderstood).
I wish you would stop being so insecure. You have pretty good language
skills and will probably be able to make good use of them. See below for
further comments on language.

>
> > 3.    If the Meiji Constitution was a constitution then so was the
> > Ottoman constitution, even though its implementation was aborted.
>
> Ok.
>
> > 4.    My definition of アジア is plastic and depends on how my clients
> > use
> > it.
>
> You'll pardon my BWAHAHA. You may, using the map linked above, provide a
> definition of アジア such that the Ottoman Empire never occupied any of
its
> territory.

Never claimed that. I am sorry that you did not know the Ottoman Empire
included areas other than Turkey (an equally ridiculous comment, but at this
stage we are simply playing tit for tat).

> Or, I could just become your client, and I could make up ad hoc
> geographic definitions. What fun!

If you pay me enough, you want to say it, and my name is not on it and thus
everyone will understand that the text represents your thoughts and not
mine, アジア can map to North America for all I care.

>
> > I am a descriptivist in any language of which I am not a native,
> > and am not going to tell native speakers how they should use their
> > terms. I do, however, think that some of the Japanese dictionaries
> > should do a better job of reflecting actual use. You need both
> > prescriptivist and descriptivist definitions.
>
> Could you please provide a model descriptivist Japanese definition for us?

Impossible. I am not a native speaker, and even if I were it would be beyond
my ability. The only way to learn how words are actually used is to listen
to and read how the words are actually used. In other words brute force. But
you knew that.


>
> > 5.    I wouldn't know about the authors, but suspect that their
> > definition of "modern" in the sense of "the modern age" begins in
> > 1868. But anyway, as you probably know, 近代憲法 here means a
> > constitution that is modern, and
> > not when it was promulgated.
>
> No, I don't know that. For some reason, perhaps because English is not my
> first language, I thought that "modern" was a temporal reference. But, the
> word in question is 現代, so let's look at some dictionaries. Of course,
> Japanese is not my first language, either.

No actually it wasn't.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J49112F45

Where you wrote:

"The section is entitled 「アジアで最初の近代憲法」, which strikes me as
odd."

Forgetting what you wrote is a sign of getting emotional. I am surprised by
this. You usually are much more careful.

It is also a sign that you are afraid of losing a debate. Not that I
intended to
debate with you, but you seem determined to make this into an adversarial
discussion.

Anyway as an aside if you want to know about a 現代国家 I guess the
following would be the closest (this is a joke by the way, normally I
wouldn't feel the need to say this, but the way this thread is going, I feel
compelled to prevent misunderstanding).

http://www.iht.com/IHT/DK/00/dk021500.html

David Harris, an engineer with Atomic Energy of Canada in Seoul, agreed.
''We've really just been to Hyundai World,'' he said.

Back to the topic. Microsoft Bookshelf doesn't give a definition of 近代憲法
but it does give one
for 近代国家 (and none for 現代国家) to wit:

━‐こっか(‥コクカ)【近代国家】　市民革命によって身分制的な絶対主義国家体制
を否定してできた国家。原則として法治主義をとり、人間の自由、平等、基本的人権
の保障、議会政治などを特徴とする。

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.


>
> From Koujien (5th edition):
> げん‐だい【現代】
> ①現在の時代。今の世。当世。
> ②歴史の時代区分の一で、特に近代と区別して使う語。日本史では太平洋戦争の敗
戦
> 以後または保守合同の1955年以降、世界史では19世紀末の帝国主義成立期以後、ロ
シ
> ア革命と第一次大戦終結以後、第二次大戦後など、さまざまな区分が行われてい
る。
>
> Hmm. Both definitions are temporal. Let's try another dictionary.
>
> From Daijirin (2nd edition):
> げんだい 【現代】
> (1)現在の時代。その人が生きている、今の時代。
> 「―日本の諸問題」「―の若者たち」「―人」
> (2)歴史の時代区分の一。世界史的には一般に、大衆社会の成立をみた一九世紀末
以
> 後、あるいは資本主義社会と社会主義社会の並立した第一次大戦後をさすが、日本
史
> では、第二次大戦後をさすことが多い。
>
> Damn. More temporal references. I guess I am going to have to ask you for
a
> definition of 現代憲法 that has no reference to when said constitution was
> promulgated.

Just because I am in a good mood, for uses of both of these terms that are
in the sense that I described, see the following:

Under 近代

━‐か(‥クヮ)【近代化】　物事が、人間性、合理性を重んずる近代的状態になって
くること。

こっか(‥コクカ)【近代国家】　市民革命によって身分制的な絶対主義国家体制を否
定してできた国家。原則として法治主義をとり、人間の自由、平等、基本的人権の保
障、議会政治などを特徴とする。　(I have also quoted this below)

‐さんぎょう(‥サンゲフ)【近代産業】　産業革命以後、工場を設け機械技術を用い
て分業化した産業形態。 (mentions after the industrial revolution, but
focuses on the 「産業形態」

━‐じん【近代人】　近代の特徴である自我に基づいた人間主義、合理主義などの近
代思想を身につけている人。

━‐てき【近代的】　〔形動〕ものごとに近代の特徴となるような性質、傾向がある
さま。また、新しい感じがあるさま。

━のれんあいかん(‥のレンアイクヮン)【近代の恋愛観】　評論。一巻。厨川白村
著。大正一一年刊。恋愛の自由と至上を説く。
━‐ぶんがく【近代文学】　近代の文学。西洋ではルネサンス以後、特にフランス革
命以後の、実証主義的、自我主義的傾向などの文学をいう。日本では、普通、明治維
新以後の文学をいう。 (both of these state dates, but really emphasize a mode
of thought).

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

For 現代　(which gives far fewer examples, as I expected).

━‐か(‥クヮ)【現代化】　現代に合うようになおすこと。また、なおしたもの。
━‐げき【現代劇】　　1　現代の問題を主題とした演劇。または、現代人の趣向に
あわせるために上演される新作の劇。
━‐じん【現代人】　現代に生きている人。
━‐てき【現代的】　〔形動〕現代にふさわしいさま。現代の流行や風潮などに関係
のある様子。当世風。
━‐ばん【現代版】　昔話や古典などで、すでになじみ深い人物や事件が、そのまま
現代で再現されたようなこと。「現代版浦島太郎」

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

I can't believe that I just had to play dueling dictionaries with you to
explain what is a very simple concept. Your Japanese is better than that (at
least I think it is), and you are smarter than that.

> As an aspiring lawyer who wishes to work in a Japan-related
> field, I think that it is very important that I learn how to distinguish a
> 現代憲法 from a plain ol' 憲法.

Then a good exercise for you would be to look up 近代憲法 and 現代憲法 on
Google and compare and contrast how they are used.

> I know that you have closely read the
Meiji
> Constitution and Ottoman Constitution (the one you didn't know about until
I
> told you), so you should have no difficulty telling me the hallmarks of a
現
> 代憲法 that the Meiji Constitution possesses and the Ottoman Constitution
> lacks.
>

Neither one of them are 現代憲法 because both of them are too old.. Japan's
現代憲法 is the present constitution. One of the definitions for 現代 is as
follows:

2 歴史の時代区分の一つ。日本では第二次世界大戦終結後の時代。広義には明治維新
以後をさすこともある。東洋史では辛亥革命以後の時代。西洋史では第一次世界大戦
終結後の時代。

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

And one of the definitions for 近代 is as follows:

2 歴史の時代区分の一つ。広義には近世と同義に用いられるが、普通には古代、中世
の後の狭義の近世につづく時期で、封建制社会の後の資本主義社会をさす。日本の場
合、幕藩体制の崩壊した明治維新から太平洋戦争の終結までをいうのが通説。

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

See the difference? And see why it is 近代 and not 現代 in the text? (by the
way, your dictionary also states 「日本では第二次世界大戦終結後の時代」 (if
I didn't have other examples in which I saw that you could read for content
in Japanese, this would make me wonder if in fact you have that capability).

I will note here, however, that just in case you want to get pedantic on me,
I stand by my statement that 近代憲法 as used in the book we are talking
about referred to modern in the sense of outlook rather than time period.


> I have to stop writing now, as your post was the most spinning that I have
> seen since I saw Dead or Alive open for the Spin Doctors,

Actually the spin doctoring was on your part.

You initially made the following comment in

http://makeashorterlink.com/?E29A42155

"I have the Tsukuru Kai's history book on my bookshelf. I've only read the
section on WWII, and its errors go without saying. Now you've got me
thinking that I should read it straight through to see if there are other
bumbles."

I asked you, I believe politely, to state some of these errors. You made
some comments about the WWII period. I asked you if you could possibly have
misread them. Instead of answering me, you then came back with comments
about the Meiji Constitution and the Ottoman Empire. You surprised me there
with your insecurity and insincerity, but it just gave me something new to
learn. And no I did not deny that the points you have raised this time may
be errors. I'll have to think about them, and to what extent they are
substantive.

> but I must ask a
> simple "yes/no" question:
> Are the statements that the 1889 Meiji Constitution was "アジアで最初の近
代
> 憲法"

Well first we should decide if the Meiji Constitution was a 近代憲法 but I
am going to duck that issue since I simply don't have a good answer. I'll
admit for the sake of argument that it is. Assuming that アジア consists of
only Turkey and Japan, then the answer would be no it is not factually
correct. Given the above discussion of the failure of the Ottoman Empire to
take hold, however, I wonder if it is a major substantive error, but I am
not in the business of writing junior high textbooks. You could of course
write the Tsukuru Kai at the following:

新しい歴史教科書をつくる会

〒１１３−００３３　東京都文京区本郷２−３６−９
電話：　０３−５８００−８５５２
ＦＡＸ：　０３−５８０４−８６８２

Who knows? Maybe they will issue a correction.

>  and that Japan under it was "アジアで最初の議会をもつ立憲国家"
> objectively false or not?

Again this first requires answering the question of whether Japan would have
been a 立憲国家 in 1890. Given that the military reported to the Emperor
alone, I have some doubts, but I don't have time to get into that with you.
Anyway, to define the discussion again to Japan and Asia Minor. I couldn't
find a definition of 立憲国家 but again Shogakkan gives the following.

━‐こく【立憲国】　立憲政体をとる国。

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

So we need to look at 立憲政体

━‐せいたい【立憲政体】　立憲政治の体制。君主制・共和制（大統領制）などがあ
る。

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

That brings us to 立憲政治

━‐せいじ(‥セイヂ)【立憲政治】　三権分立の原則を認めた憲法に基づいて行われ
る政治。政治権力の無制限な行使を抑え、個人の人権や自由を守ることを目的とす
る。

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

So now we need to look at 政治

国を治めること。近代では、主権者が立法、司法、行政などの諸機関を通じて国家的
統一を維持し、国民と共同生活を守ること。政事。まつりごと。

Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary. Shinsou-ban (Revised edition) ゥ Shogakukan
1988.国語大辞典（新装版）ゥ小学館 1988.

Which if you see above means includes 国家的統一を維持し、国民と共同生活を守
ること

So, having a 立憲国家 doesn't simply mean that a constitution is passed but
that it is implemented and put into practice.

Given that the Ottoman Constitution was only in effect for slightly more
than one year, and the parliament met for less than a year, whereupon it was
immediately suspended and the Sultan ruled by fiat until 1908, I would say
that the Ottoman Empire did not qualify as of the time in question.

I don't know enough about the rest of アジア to say one way or another, but
if we accept that Japan was a 立憲国家, and if we limit our discussion to
Japan and Turkey (yes I am using Turkey deliberately), then I would say that
yes this statement is true.



> No spin doctoring

See above Mr. Sultan of Swing. You are the one who ducked out on your
discussions of the WWII period.

> about plastic definitions, if
> you please. "Yes" or "no" will do.

The question may be yours, but the answer must be mine.

> --
> Kevin Gowen
> "[T]he Constitution appears to be fundamentally at odds with progressive
> ideals and visions."

I would agree with that actually, which is one of the reasons why I look
askance at those who refer to themselves as "progressives," or talk about
"world progressivism" (a little too much time in my Modern Communist
Ideologies course (I guess that dates me)). I am a believer in bourgeois
democracy.

> - Progressive Critical Race Studies "scholar" Robin West in a 1992 law
> journal article (72 B.U.L.Rev. 765) that appears in abbreviated form in at
> least one constitutional law textbook used in American law schools and
> explains that the Constitution's emphasis on protecting the liberty of
> individuals is incompatible with the goals of the progressive left.
>

I had thought that you would be willing to discuss errors and mistakes in
the 新しい歴史教科書, and I believe that I asked you politely to mention
them. I see however, that I was wrong, at least about the first part. Good
luck to you, and when you wind up in international business, I hope for your
sake that when a Japanese attorney corrects errors in your understanding of
Japanese law, you don't try to rebut him by telling him that you have an
M.A. from Emory, and a JD from Florida State Law School.

Regards,

Richard Thieme@I understand now why Shuji usually discusses problems like
this on Han board instead of wasting his time bringing people, who haven't
bothered to read carefully, up to speed on what terms actually mean.