Support NeoGAF

[Plies]

In my weeb-tastic mind, I like to think that Japan would have thrived in isolation and eventually become a unique world power on their own.

However, I think this is a more realistic scenario had the Treaty of Kanagawa not been signed:

So, let's say the Shogunate in 1854 refuses Perry. Let's even say that the Americans shrug and go home for whatever reason, and we put a butterfly net in place to prevent anything immediately changing.

A few years later the Second Opium War is going to be fought, and that places not one but two well supplied European armies in the region, backed by a major fleet.

In this timeline, Japan is likely to be opened by Harry Parkes under the protection of the Royal Navy, or even falling into the hands of the French. Either scenario here would be disastrous, as the English and French have been proven to be poor long-term colonizers.

Am I spot on with my assessment?

 

[Rentahamster]

Is this your thesis for your degree in nosy dildo archaeology?

 

[winjer]

The Japanese although very conservative, have a great capacity to do very fast advancements, when they are pushed to.
Case in point, the industrialization in the Meiji period. Or the technology in chips and software after WW2.

My guess is that if Japan were to see China, Vietnam, India and other countries, getting bullied by western poers, they would jump to the conclusion that they would be next.
So they would do a jump in industrialization, similar to what we saw in the Meiji era. But with a Shogun in power, the focus would be much greater in military industries and very few reforms in their society.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

If whitey didn't show up then that Yasuke dude from the Assassin's Creed would have turned Nippon into a Wakanda. Or Nipkanda if you prefer.

 

[jason10mm]

I don't think any Asian power could resist the European ones from that time. None ever did, be it india, China, or japan. So any place that tried to just ignore Europe would eventually get taken. Trying to interact "as peers" and learn what practices/technology to adopt probably wouldn't work, Europe was just too rapacious.

 

[RagnarokIV]

i like turtles

 

[Tams]

Britain ran the colonies the best and most efficiently. The US forced us to decolonise, which left behind terrible messes.

The French ran their colonies badly (Belgium still takes the biscuit as the worst), but 'decolonised' much better (except for French Indochina, lol). Hence why they essentially still have an empire (De Gaulle being a pompous badass and allowing colonies to become departments with local representation in the French Parliament).

 

[Plies]

i like turtles

how dare you

 

[IDKFA]

Either scenario here would be disastrous, as the English and French have been proven to be poor long-term colonizers.

Please, elaborate.

Just about the British. I couldn't give a shit about the French.

 

[Plies]

Please, elaborate.

Just about the British. I couldn't give a shit about the French.

Well, which former British colony can you name that is no longer a shithole today?

And I also lost respect for English colonialism after the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Tams]

---

Well, which former British colony can you name that is no longer a shithole today?

And I also lost respect for English colonialism after the Boston Tea Party.

That's not poor long-term colonising, unless you mean retaining control as coloniser, in which case it is you Yanks to blame. France just told the US to fuck off.

That almost every former British colony has squandered the good the British Empire did do for them, is on the people who gained independence.

Anyway, Singapore and Hong Kong (even with CCP control now) have done very well for themselves.

 

[Plies]

Anyway, Singapore and Hong Kong (even with CCP control now) have done very well for themselves.

Has everything to do with China's regional economic influence.
The British only contributed cool accents onto Asian people.

 

[IDKFA]

Well, which former British colony can you name that is no longer a shithole today?

And I also lost respect for English colonialism after the Boston Tea Party.

I'm told by US GAF that the USA isn't a bad place to live.

Canada seems okay. Australia? New Zealand? Republic of Ireland?

 

[AJUMP23]

They were an isolationist world power prior to ww2. They lacked oil and gas so they had to trade or invade for that.

 

[Wildebeest]

I believe Japan was already changing before they opened up. The merchant class was rising in importance and changing the values of the nation. Britain actually did have major interests in the industrialization and opening up of Japan as they saw them as a bulwark against the rapid expansion of the Russian Empire. Really if we are talking about Japan not opening up it would be them failing to fend off invasions from an expansionist Russia which really would have drastically changed world history potentially meaning no Communist Russia or China.

 

[Tams]

Has everything to do with China's regional economic influence.
The British only contributed cool accents onto Asian people.

Oh yeah, and absolutely nothing to do with the British deftness at administration backed up by a powerful navy.

I will give it to you that it allowed the Chinese there to do well (in Singapore, it has always been the Chinese who have led well - first under the British, then using institutions and laws inherited from the British).

 

[p_xavier]

Is this your thesis for your degree in nosy dildo archaeology?

Like I didn't publish a paper on this ten years ago...

I'm told by US GAF that the USA isn't a bad place to live.

Canada seems okay. Australia? New Zealand? Republic of Ireland?

All becoming worst countries unfortunately. Canada was top living country to be in the 90s to now being in the 29th position.

 

[IDKFA]

Like I didn't publish a paper on this ten years ago...

All becoming worst countries unfortunately. Canada was top living country to be in the 90s to now being in the 29th position.

But they are former British colonies that turned into first world nations.

 

[Tams]

But they are former British colonies that turned into first world nations.

And have now decided to import those who refuse to integrate.

 

[IDKFA]

And have now decided to import those who refuse to integrate.

That's a different story that falls into modern politics.

The point is, those nations are still successful examples of former British colonies.

 

[kentkouh]

In my weeb-tastic mind, I like to think that Japan would have thrived in isolation and eventually become a unique world power on their own.

However, I think this is a more realistic scenario had the Treaty of Kanagawa not been signed:

So, let's say the Shogunate in 1854 refuses Perry. Let's even say that the Americans shrug and go home for whatever reason, and we put a butterfly net in place to prevent anything immediately changing.

A few years later the Second Opium War is going to be fought, and that places not one but two well supplied European armies in the region, backed by a major fleet.

In this timeline, Japan is likely to be opened by Harry Parkes under the protection of the Royal Navy, or even falling into the hands of the French, which could be a bit of ome fun for the imperial powers involved. Either scenario here would be disastrous, as the English and French have been proven to be poor long-term colonizers.

Am I spot on with my assessment?

If Japan had refused Perry in 1854 and the U.S. had walked away, it's likely that European powers, especially Britain and France, would have eventually forced Japan open. The Second Opium War and the presence of European military forces in the region would have made it difficult for Japan to remain isolated for long. If Japan fell under British or French influence, it would have been a disastrous scenario, as both powers were not well-equipped for long-term colonization in East Asia. Japan's eventual path to modernization might still have happened, but through a different set of pressures and players.