|
Post by tim on Nov 5, 2005 19:29:53 GMT -5
ok, man, i understand you. just so there's no confusion, i have never nor ever will justify the Japanese killing innocents. The Chinese suffered the same thing, so i am NOT trying to glorify Hideyoshi. I just didn't know I would offend you so much. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by skinz on Nov 6, 2005 12:01:31 GMT -5
That doesn't change the fact that he was evil. He ordered and wanted the murder of countless Chosunese civilians - women and children included. He allowed his armies to march through Chosun and rape its women at every stop. Navalpower, I agree with you that Hideyoshi was a evil tyrant who have thousands of Chosun's blood in his name, but he also killed many Japanese and Mings also. So he was not limited to only ordering killings of Chosun citizens. The Japanese consider him great because he had a lot of power. The Japanese also don't care and overlook the number of innocent people Hideyoshi has killed to fulfill his murderous desires of world conquest. In my opinion, I think the Japanese consider him great because of his rise from carrying shoes to unification of Japan not because he ordered thousands to be killed for his "world conquest". Most people think Napoleon and Alexander the Great are great figures with known facts of their killings of thousands in the process. And you can't say "The Japanese also don't care and overlook the number of innocent people Hideyoshi killed" because your now generalizing. Japanese citizens tried to revolt against Hideyoshi reign during the years of the imjin war. No, I'm not Japanese so don't think I'm defending their atrocities, but you can't limit yourself to only look at the Chosun side of the things and say Hideyoshi is evil because he did this to Chosun only. He also did things to the Japanese and the Mings.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Nov 8, 2005 13:18:14 GMT -5
Everyone has excellent points, and there have been some misunderstandings but I am glad to say you are working them out between yourselves and very politely too--I do appreciate that. However, my original point was this: Hideyoshi was portrayed as nothing but evil in this series, with no redeeming qualities, and then at the end, they seemed to try to evoke sympathy by his worthless (and well-deserved) death. (I do understand, however, that this too is fiction and he didn't die that way no matter what we may wish.) This is bad writing. He was a monster, but he was also a human being, all monsters are human beings. It's too easy to dismiss evil in others, to say to ourselves that we (or our leaders) would never be that way, but the possibility is always there, closer or nearer to the surface, depending on the moral and/or emotional qualities of the person. There was nothing to tell us why on earth anyone would have followed this psychopath, there was nothing about his unification activities, nothing that would have inspired loyalty in a warrior even if there was later deterioration. I do now remember the local magistrate and his amoral son, though--they, too, were paper characters but jealousy of YSS's natural abilities seemed to explain that. Bo
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Nov 8, 2005 13:18:46 GMT -5
skinz, what does your banner portray? It looks intriguing.
Bo
|
|
|
Post by Skinz UL on Nov 8, 2005 13:38:42 GMT -5
skinz, what does your banner portray? It looks intriguing. Bo Its from the movie "THE PROMISE". I created a thread about it in the Other Shows board. Check it out it looks good
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Nov 8, 2005 16:15:44 GMT -5
Aigu. Thanks.
Bo
|
|
|
Post by Heather on Nov 8, 2005 17:35:25 GMT -5
Thanks for thinking of the characters portrayed in a psychological manner, Bo! I'm glad to see someone think along the same lines as myself, and I agree with everything you said. We are very comfortable labeling people in an effort to justify our own feelings towards that person - but there is always good and evil in everyone, and everyone has a rhyme and a reason for who and what they are. But looking at the Taiko as portrayed in IYSS, I agree he was trumped up to be that very wicked badguy who sits perversly in the center of the goings-on, like the ultimate evil deity reveling in every minute of the Hell on earth he himself has created. On a fictional story level, this makes it easier for the audience to identify with the primary hero of the tale, and to undestand that: here is the badguy, here is the goodguy. Hideyoshi was indeed the one we were suppose to loathe and blame, because the writers even gave us moments to sympathize with the other Japanese soldiers, giving them likeable qualities. But like you said, even Hideyoshi's "good" qualities were played off as dastardly; his fatherly moments were "here is the heir to my throne, the child who will become exactly like me when I am gone and continue my reign as the ultimate ruler". Not very likeable, is it? Although I didn't get the impression we were suppose to feel sorry for the Taiko when he died. It was very sudden, and the use of his chaotic nightmares making him run around the garden like a crazy-man - I felt that was to give us, the audience, some sense of righteous closure, to see our primary badguy get his comeupance. Actually, I felt sorry again for his warriors, the men left behind whose goal then was to find a safe way home. So I do agree, Toyotomi Hideyoshi was the only unsympathetic character in the series. Everyone else was softer versions, either the antagonist or protagonist; not definable as simply good or evil, which made them easier to sympathize with. Like King Sunjo, whom we saw spiraling downwards because of ill advice and a hard war. Depressed, bitter people everywhere could understand his hardened thoughts. And his Royal Attendant I saw like a fatherly figure, too proud of his "son" to open his eyes to anything else. What he plotted in the shadows against YSS was out of his loyalty to his King, the sort of flip-side equivelent to how Nalbal was for YSS. I don't remember the "local magistrate and his amoral son", but the earlier episodes were more or less played out like a typical TV show - with your "baddies of the hour". They were there to add conflict to the episode(s) before Hideyoshi was ever introduced. Even Chun Su and Hong we were made to eventually dislike because they were turncoats, but we then remembered what hardships they had to endure and thus turned out that way. Obviously I'm speaking in regards to the fictional TV story. On an accurate historical level, it is like theBo said, everyone is human and everyone has their own decisions to make. The Taiko could be seen as having done good things, and bad things, historically. And you know what, it all depends on whose side you're on - at the time, and even now. I'm not saying this to justify Hideyoshi's dream of conquering China through Korea, and the chaos it caused, but you do have to think - without terrible tyrants, there would never be great heroes. If Hideyoshi had merely kept the fighting within his own country, most of us outside Korea would never have known who Admiral Yi Soon Shin was. It's a shame, but it's a fact of life. ~ Heather
|
|
|
Post by moreshige unlogged on Nov 9, 2005 9:55:36 GMT -5
Well, Choson was invaded repeatedly after the Imjin wars. We don't know if YSS would have become a great hero even though he most likely would have been a land-based general. I believe his hard work ethic and his inovative spirit would have still manifested elsewhere.
I also take issue with the fact that YSS become a hero for the sake of becoming a hero. He didn't do his job for the sake of glory but rather out of circumstance and dire necessity. The very existence of Choson or very the identity of its people was at stake. If we look at it another way, had the Japanese invasion succeeded, the people and their descendents would have become "Japanese".
The drama makes it clear and so does the tone of his nanjung ilgi that YSS wasn't thinking about heroics. It was certainly not the Japanese way nor Won Kyun's way to glory and honor i.e getting the most kills or taking the most heads. What I take away from this drama is the whole notion of what it means to be a hero. A true hero doesn't actually look forward to becoming a hero so he or she can be remembered for the ages. YSS nor his country didn't ask to be put into harm's way. If the Japanese generals will be admired for their heroics, then by that same measure YSS should not be or else we'll be missing the point of why YSS did what he had to do.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Nov 9, 2005 11:34:27 GMT -5
Yes, excellent points, both Heather and Moreshige (well, and everyone else, of course). It seems this drama has given us a lot to think about on a lot of levels, such as history vs fiction, tenets of good writing, personal and public morality...I'm glad I got to see it.
Bo
|
|
|
Post by Heather on Nov 9, 2005 15:04:31 GMT -5
Oh, I quite agree. I'm not implying the man would have changed his values and integrity if the war hadn't happened when and how it did, because obviously he was destined to do great things (if you believe in destiny). But the aftermath of his deeds may have gone unrecognized in time, especially worldwide, like so many other great soldiers and leaders. Did I say that? I'm really sorry if it sounded like that's what I meant, for I certainly know YSS wasn't trying to make a name for himself. He was doing both his job and what he knew it be right in the face of unsurmountable odds and loss, and yet he prevailed. That is why the people of Chosun admired him, and that is why today we can call him a hero. I agree with that! Please don't misunderstand my use of the word "hero". More or less I meant to use it in the same way I used "tyrant". I don't think Hideyoshi sought to be known as a tyrant, just as YSS didn't desire to be called a hero. That wasn't their motives or ultimate goal in life, obviously. What I meant to imply is how we in the future label people like such without bothering to understand the circumstances and what the induvidual believed at the time. And I mean this in regards to everyone historically (Bo even mentioned Hitler), not just in relation to YSS. I guess I'll shut up now, and sorry if I'm not making any real sense. I just got back from the dentist and I'm a little distraught 'cuz I can't feel my face...
|
|
|
Post by moreshige unlogged on Nov 9, 2005 18:40:56 GMT -5
hey heather, im sorry, i wasn't refuting you on the later part of my post. I was refuting a general attitude that places the meaning of what a real hero is verses someone who makes a name in history ie Hideyoshi, Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. If being a hero is just about heroics and glory then these aforementioned people can be heros in the minds of French ultra nationalists, neo-nazis and communists.
And to some Japanese the Imjin generals like Kiyomasa were "heros" because they were heroic in the same vein as an Odysseus. ( I saw a Korean show that actually went to interview the descendents of Kiyomasa and their attitude was one of admiration)
But should these same Japanese minds or anyone else admire YSS in the same way then they miss the point. Sure YSS had all those victories to earn heroic status,and he had a great strategic mind but he was a hero in another completely different but truer sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by moreshige unlogged on Nov 10, 2005 9:57:24 GMT -5
hmm maybe Odysseus isn't quite the comparison I want since he went to Troy for revenge rather than just plain glory. Napoleon fits the bill better even though he went out to conquer under a false pretense to "liberate" europe from despotism.
|
|
|
Post by BungalowDweller on Nov 12, 2005 9:54:52 GMT -5
yes, moreshige. There is a moral/ethical face to heroism that cannot be expunged. That is why John Adams was heroic and Robespierre was not. Admiral Nelson, yes. Napolean no. D.H. Lawrence, yes. Osama Bin Laden, no. Winston Churchill, yes. Neville Chamberlain, no. Todd Beamer, yes. 9/11 jihadists, no.
|
|
|
Post by Heather on Nov 17, 2005 22:33:15 GMT -5
No problem! I mean, I completely understand what you're saying, and I apologize if I jumped the gun or came off ultra sensitive (which I know I am). Thanks, though.
|
|
|
Post by moreshige unlogged on Nov 23, 2005 18:40:29 GMT -5
yes, moreshige. There is a moral/ethical face to heroism that cannot be expunged. That is why John Adams was heroic and Robespierre was not. Admiral Nelson, yes. Napolean no. D.H. Lawrence, yes. Osama Bin Laden, no. Winston Churchill, yes. Neville Chamberlain, no. Todd Beamer, yes. 9/11 jihadists, no. Those are really great examples! You are a true history buff.
|
|