Jump to content

Talk:Convention of Kanagawa

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

W.G. Beasley as the main source

[edit]

As I was reading this entry, I was surprised at the number of assertions about American aims. There is very little to suggest what the Japanese might have benefited from in such a treaty as the Kanagawa Convention, and it seems like speculation that the Japanese (of all people in Asia) simply submitted to so-called gunboat diplomacy. As I was reading down the Wiki article, I noticed that most of the text is sourced to a W. G. Beasley, professor at the University of London, and his book on the Meiji Restoration.

I have not read Professor Beasley's book, but it seems reasonable that there are other perspectives than a British person commenting on U.S.-Japan relations, as to what was going on during the 1850s between Japan and the western seafaring powers and particularly with America. In fact, Professor Beasley's interpretation of the Perry Expedition's alternative goal reads remarkably like the tactics of the British Navy of that century, that generally entered a port and started bombarding the harbor's populace if Britain wasn't getting its way (e.g. Bombardment of Fort McHenry, Baltimore, Maryland, 1814; Bombardment of Kagoshima, Japan, 1863).

Arguably, Japan was not bullied into the treaty of Kanagawa at all. The Shogunate realized that the industrial and scientific revolutions had advanced greatly in the West---far beyond what could have been understood by the first Tokugawas of the 1600s, and many outside Japan, of course, as well. The Japanese realized that they would inevitably have to make a treaty of commerce (not just a treaty to provision) with a western power in any event, and it might as well have been the Americans, since the Dutch told the Japanese so much about them, and the reputation of the British was already well understood from its dealings with China in the first Opium War.

It is a shame when myths and stereotypes get spun and repeated as history. It would be great to read a more realistic account of the geopolitics considered from the Japanese perspective, of a country that did not have to open itself to western contact. It would be good to see the part about Biddle revised to state that he was physically attacked, and that is the main reason the U.S. navy left in 1846. There are second generation sources (late 1800s) that confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofin (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some text

[edit]

Treaty of Kanagawa: On March 31, 1854, the Treaty of Kanagawa was used by Commodore Matthew Perry of the U.S. Navy to force the opening of the Japanese ports of Shimoda and Hakodate to American trade. Though he refused to deal with petty Japanese officials and demanded to speak with the Japanese Head of State, Perry did not realize that he had only spoken with representatives of the Tokugawa Shogun and not the Emperor. For the Emperor to interact in any way with foreign barbarians was, of course, out of the question.

It is suggested in the article on the General Sherman Incident, that Japan only signed the convention under threat of force. This is not substantiated on any Wikipedia article that I have found and should be examined.

Tokugawa Shogun

[edit]

Tokugawa Ieyoshi died in 1853, soon after he heard of Perry's arrival. So how could he be responsible for this Convention? KC130 (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trade?

[edit]

Reading the actual text of the Convention of Kanagawa, I don't see any article which specifically states that Japan must open Shimoda and Hakodate to "trade". The treaty stipulates that American ships may stop in Shimoda and Hakodate and purchase wood, coal, water and supplies necessary for that ship, but nowhere does the treaty state that general trade of goods (not related to ship's supplies) must begin. I feel this is a great and common misunderstanding of the actual Convention of Kanagawa. In practice, the creation of ports of provision may have snowballed into trade. But it is important for Wikipedia to explain how that happened, when the treaty itself did not force general trade upon Japan. This fact has long been overlooked in many sources that explain the opening of Japan. If ships were simply stopping at Shimoda and Hakodate to buy supplies and move on, then would there have been any justifiable Sonno Joi movement? How did it come about that the simple provisioning of ships snowballed into a large foreign presence so embarrassing that the Tokugawa Shogunate eventually collapsed? --Westwind273 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Japanese View?

[edit]

It would be interesting to understand how Perry is viewed in Japan. One would assume he was not welcome within Japan at the time, yet within the article is a picture of a Japanese bust of Perry. This indicates that Perry is perhaps not viewed as a complete villain.--Jameslear (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are mixed perceptions. For one, he is known by the majority of people, because the end of isolation was a major event and catalyst in Japanese history. I think Perry himself was rather disliked– there are many portraits of him portraying him quite ugly or goblin-like. Still, there is recognition that because the isolation period came to an end, there was a need for change and reform. Hence came the Meiji restoration and such. I think the positive, or at least less negative perceptions come from this change over time. But Perry himself still went about negotiations in a way that was disrespectful and deeply disliked by the Japanese. Gofigure8 em (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Gofigure8 em[reply]
@Gofigure8 em: Do you have any good references that could be used so this could be added into the article? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Yes. Check out:
@Gofigure8: Thanks. Will you split your comments above into separate bullet points for each ref? That will make it easier to parse. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gofigure8: Thanks! That makes it much easier to read. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Convention of Kanagawa. 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) 08:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Convention of Kanagawa. 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) 18:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the West so determined?

[edit]

Why was the West so determined to trade with Japan that they were willing to resort to militarily bullying the island nation? The answer to this question is missing from the article and would explain the subtext behind the entire Convention. I can imagine, I suppose, it was just greed and an untapped market. But, that's a simplistic explanation. Jyg (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides trade, which always benefits both countries, these were the reasons mentioned in President Millard Fillmore's letter to the Emperor of Japan.

I have directed Commodore Perry to mention another thing to your imperial majesty. Many of our ships pass every year from California to China; and great numbers of our people pursue the whale fishery near the shores of Japan. It sometimes happens, in stormy weather, that one of our ships is wrecked on your imperial majesty's shores. In all such cases we ask, and expect, that our unfortunate people should be treated with kindness, and that their property should be protected, till we can send a vessel and bring them away. We are very much in earnest in this. Commodore Perry is also directed by me to represent to your imperial majesty that we understand there is a great abundance of coal and provisions in the Empire of Japan. Our steamships, in crossing the great ocean, burn a great deal of coal, and it is not convenient to bring it all the way from America. We wish that our steamships and other vessels should be allowed to stop in Japan and supply themselves with coal, provisions, and water. They will pay for them in money, or anything else your imperial majesty's subjects may prefer; and we request your imperial majesty to appoint a convenient port, in the southern part of the Empire, where our vessels may stop for this purpose. We are very desirous of this.

These are the only objects for which I have sent Commodore Perry, with a powerful squadron, to pay a visit to your imperial majesty's renowned city of Yedo: friendship, commerce, a supply of coal and provisions, and protection for our shipwrecked people.

Source: https://visualizingcultures.mit.edu/black_ships_and_samurai/presletter.html 2001:4998:EF60:8:0:0:0:105A (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This policy had two main objectives

[edit]

The Japanese feared that foreign trade and the wealth developed would lead to the rise of a daimyō powerful enough to overthrow the ruling Tokugawa clan, especially after seeing what happened to China during the Opium Wars.

The article presents this as an intent of the policy when it was adopted in the 17th century, but the Japanese only saw "what happened to China in the Opium Wars" shortly before the end of Sakoku. The Opium Wars may have been an influence near the end, but they can't have been part of the two main original objectives as the article presents. 2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Convention_of_Kanagawa&oldid=1238927164"