Lost In Translation And The Double Standard

RagingFire, MacBeth,

Searching on the web, I think there are multiple versions of the Mongol invasion of Japan. Some claiming the islands of Iki and Tsushima were taken. Some not. Some claiming the 100,000 force landed, some not. On the whole, I found these to be the most accurate and complete. (My earlier account in my previous post is probably wrong).

http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/Essays/C06/E0604.htm
http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/Essays/C06/E0606.htm

http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/CULPEPER/RAVINA/PROJECT/Maps/Mongols/Mongolinvasion9.html

===============
Because the two defeats broke the Mongol's aura of invincinbility, Kublai Khan was in fact preparing for a third invasion of Japan to restore his reputation when he died. The Yuan Dynasty crumbled soon after. So the chief reason for the Mongols' failure to return is really Kublai's death and subsequent unrest on the mainland, rather than any fear of Japanese military power.

 

Nice finds. My understanding is that the idea was abandoned prior to that, in all effect, due mainly to military doubts, although there were those who felt they had to reassert their invincibility.

What many don't know is the role the deaths of individual Mongol leaders had on the Western world. They had defeated everyone they had encountered coming West, including the best military forces the West had to offer ( Teutonic Knights) the land least hosptitable to invasion ( Russia) and the best geo-strategic position for stopping a namodic invasion, Georgia. All by different, usually brilliant means. They were poised to sweep through a failry undefended Western Europe when the Khan dies, and according to Mongol tradition, all the prospective heirs had to be present to determine the new leader, so they turned and went home, undefeated. They returned, and swept trough other areas, but they never really regained the ambition for non-stop conquest that only tradition had deprived them. The history of the entire planet would have been very different if not for that one custom.

 

Just wanted to add that even though the Japanese had numerical advantage, were aided by a huge network of coastal fortifications, and successfully pinned the Mongol armies on the coast (preventing much maneuvering), the very fact that they could stand toe-to-toe against a 150,000-strong Mongol army (of which a good 1/3 were Mongol troopers) for seven weeks and fight them to a standstill is a testimony to Japan's fine warriors and military tradition. In comparison, Subotai needed less than 50,000 men on the battlefield to annihilate the armies of Eastern Europe.

 

yeah. i always get caught up thinking about the historical what-ifs here. if the mongols had completed their sweep across europe and there was an enlightened administrator who took charge, would the renaissance have occurred earlier? would there have been a pan-eurasian pax mongolia? would there have been a thriving commercial exchange three centuries before the start of the age of discoveries? would the mongols have converted to christianity? etc. etc.

but the truth of the matter was that even with a very sinicized Kublai Khan, the Mongols were terrible empire administrators. little of what they built lasted. and they brought little but grief, oppression and misery to their conquered lands, a stark contrast to the roman empire to which it's often compared... a damn shame and waste...

i think there are many that pose military what-ifs. like if the mongols encountered the forests of central europe, the mountains of switzerland, the navies of the mediterranean, the castles of western europe, the longbowmen of England/Wales, the moorish armies of north africa and southern spain (with elephants and horsearchers), etc. etc. But i usually think that by the 1270-80s, with China's technology and manpower at their disposal, and with a much improved mongolian army, none of these would have stood any chance.

 

Mac Beth, Lil,
Good resources. It seems to me, we can not learn history by reading one source. It's probably safe to say neither the Mongols nor Japanese won the war outright. Battles were fought, losses to both sides. The Mongols abandoned further attempts because of 1 or a combination of reasons: weather, uncertainty of victory, fear of the cost of lives, fear of the Samurai, death of Kublai Khan, unrest in China and some even said unrest in Viet Nam.

 

There are less international resources on the war between the Mongols and Vietnamese. Your account is fairly accurate.

What I read said the Mongols invaded Viet Nam 3 times in 1257, 1284, 1287. They occupied large parts of Viet Nam including the captial Ha Noi of VN. The Vietnamese utilized guerrilla warfare and scorched-earth tactics that caused many casualties. The Mongols gave up and left (or retreated?) each time.

How do you judge who won?

http://www.bartleby.com/67/399.html
has a brief entry.

BTW, Khmers = Cambodian, not Vietnamese. Back then, Vietnam consisted of present-day North VietNam only.

The Vietnamese moved South and took land from the Cham and Khmers to build present-day Viet Nam.

 

I saw lost in Translation, and I haven't seen Last Samurai.

I really liked Lost in Translation, though. Some friends of mine who are Philippino thought the movie was racist. My Korean wife, and myself did not.

I think there are two reasons why I don't consider this movie racist.

1. Many people have already mentioned the fish out of water aspect.

2. They do use the lingual differences for jokes at some point. I thought that was stupid, and old, but not racist. The difference is that they don't make all Japanese people look like the fact there are some difficulties with r's l's is the sum total of an entire race. They hang out with Japanese friends, who aren't just there to shown completely different than a linguistic joke. They show a wide variety of aspects about different Japanese. It's not an effort to pidgeon hole all Japanese a certain way. So while they do use the linguistic problems for humor, it's not done as an effort to make fun of all Japanese or reduce Japanese culture to just that one tiny aspect of linguistics.

If you would like to see a very racist view of an Asian stereotype, please watch Breakfast at Tiffany's.

As far as the low keyness of things, I think it's very well done and very accurate. The film is largely autobiographical of Sophia Coppola and Spike Jonez. But that kind of low key thing is something I witness in life often, and rarely seen conveyed in film. That may be because it isn't exciting, and certainly some people here weren't excited by Lost in Translation.

 

I enjoyed the Last Samurai, not so much for Tom Cruise's character (who was admittedly a reach) or his acting, but that of Ken Watanabe's portrayal of Kasumoto. He stole the show. I left the movie thinking that the Japanese were an honorable people, as opposed to thinking that they needed to import a drunk American to learn how to fight. What I did like about Tom Cruise's character was his conversion to Eastern thinking. I thought that was moving.

As for Lost in Translation, I was entertained by the portrayal of the young Japanese in the movie - they appeared to be going through a hippee stage.

 

Lost In Translation was pretentious, but 21 Grams wasn't? C'mon.

I did like the take on Christianity presented by 21 Grams.

I thought the L-and-R pronunciation jokes were extremely tiresome. I've never found those amusing and they seemed jarringly out of place. Aside from that, your skin would have to be thinner than Lawrence Frank's resume to be offended by the film.

 

I didn't think it was trying to be especially deep, just examining a situation and all that goes along with it. I think the fact that it's common might be where the appeal for some people comes from. In some ways, perhaps, it's a neo-realism. It's not so far removed from O'Neil, now that I think about it.

But I can see where that might not be somebody's cup of tea. However if that isn't of particular intrest to people, I don't think it means that movie is bad.

 

Nomar, thanks for the response. I think this is simply a matter of interpretation. You think Translation tries but fails to be "deep", whereas 21 Grams isn't "contrived". I had the opposite reaction.

And I actually agree with you on the existence of racial double standards, but that's getting off the BBS Hangout track so it's better we not delve into it because keeley will move us to the Harangue Out, the Nazi.

 

See, I really didn't think Lost In Translation tried to be deep at all. I just thought it was a good story about two seemingly different people who were uncertain of themselves and their lives at that time who happened to come into contact. They gave each other brief intermissions from their usual lives and that time together gave each of them some sort of conclusion about how they should proceed from there. I absolutely loved the film.

As far as the racial components, I certainly didn't see it, but as I'm not Asian, I'm going to be consistent and say that it's not up to me to say that the movie was offensive. It appears that some Asians did find it offensive while others did not. It's not my place, as a white man, to criticize someone for feeling something that I couldn't ever feel.

I'm not so sure about the double standard though. For one thing, someone pointed out The Air Up There. Now, when I saw the movie, the only thing that I found offensive was the crappy story, however, I could see now, looking back, how people could find that offensive as well. There was no outcry then. However, I do believe that any time you hear criticism about a movie in regards to how it deals with race, it's because we're more familiar with it. People in America, for whatever reason, are more aware of the plight of African-Americans, Hispanics, women, etc., than they are of Asian-Americans. Go read the D&D from about two-three weeks ago if you don't believe me. However, I honestly don't think it's because people believe it's fine and dandy to be racist towards them, it's more of an ignorance behind it.

I think Asians should start to inform people about the stereotypes and things that they find offensive, honestly. I nominate Nomar for President of the NAAAP.

BTW, where did you get the autobiographical stuff? Not that I don't believe you, I just think it'd be interesting to read.

 

Also, the ditzy blonde actress played by Anna Faris was supposedly based on Cameron Diaz.

I thought the absolute best thing about the movie was that it brought Kevin Shields back to making music.