The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 18 | Issue 20 | Number 2 | Article ID 5496 | Oct 15, 2020

1

Introduction: Race and Empire in Meiji Japan

Ayelet Zohar

Abstract: The Meiji era (1868–1912) marks theinitial process of Japan’s passage intomodernity through Westernization, and itsidentification as a modern nation-state. As partof the process of identifying with Europeandiscourses, of altering its position in Asia, andof adopting Western models and values, Japanchanged its political, social and culturaldispositions towards industrialization andcapitalism, as well as towards nationalism andcolonialism, cultural and artistic creation.

Over the course of modernization, and ofadapting various Western discourses on scienceand culture, Japan accepted several newapproaches, especially those setting Europeapart and above from the rest of the world. As aresult, Japan saw the rise of racial discourses,which eventually contributed to the state’simperial expansion into Asia.

Japan’s path to modernity was a twofoldmovement: on one hand, it was an internalstruggle for association with Westerncivilizations and adoption of their modernity.On the o ther hand , Japan sought toconceptually distance itself from Asia, only toreturn a few decades later as a conquering andimperial power. In the Japanese imagination,European cultures served as a perfect modelfor its own reformation, yet, at the same time,Japan found itself on a pendulum movementbetween Europe and Asia. Japan distanceditself from what it perceived as a primitive,underdeveloped region and its cultures, whilesimultaneously seeking to include China andIndia in its vision of a unified Orient, astronghold of Asian cultures positioned againstthe Occident. Ultimately, Japan’s self-definition

came about through the notion of Otherness:the concept of “Japan” was defined primarilyagainst the background of Europeancivilization, but also, against a range of othercultures, including China and the UnitedStates, as well as its own immediate past ofTokugawa Japan.

In the first stage, the primary task was to setJapanese culture apart, and essentialize “Asia”as its Other. The desire to associate Japan withthe West then led to a sense of Japan’s“ infer ior i ty” (especia l ly in terms oftechnological and scientific achievements), atthe same time that Japanese leaders adopted aWestern position in claiming “superiority” overAsia. The double movement of association (withEurope) and disassociation (from Asia)produced a new subtext to the binaryopposition between the advanced andsophisticated, versus the primitive and simple-minded. This double movement, much like thebinary logic that drove Western colonialism,laid the foundations for racial ideologies andimperial practices in Hokkaidō and Ryūkyū,Korea and Taiwan, Manchuria and China, aswell as the South-Pacific Islands and SoutheastAsia.

The articles in this issue look at the roots of thediscourses on race in the Meiji era, in tandemwith the Japanese empire’s development in thelatter part of the 19th Century. These conceptsof race and empire lay at the center of Japan’sracist ideologies and imperialist fantasies, andnow serve as the focus of our discussions.

Keywords: Race, Empire, Meiji Japan,Modernity, Capitalism, Industry, Colonialism,

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

2

Imperial Japan

Figure 1: Hiroshige III (1842-1894)Illustration of the Steam TrainRa i l road be tween Tokyo andY o k o h a m a「東京横濱蒸氣車鉄道之圖」Woodblock print (nishiki-e), inkand color on paper Vertical ōbantriptych; 36.5x72 cm. @ Jean S. andFrederic A. Sharf Collection, Museumof Fine Art, Boston.

2018 marked the 150th anniversary of the MeijiRestoration, and Japan’s embarkation on theroad of intensified modernization. This processentailed continuous adaptation of Europeanand American practices, values, norms,ideologies and technologies. On the occasion ofthe sesquicentennial celebration, we had theenormous pleasure to organize the IsraeliAssociation of Japanese Studies (IAJS) ThematicConference, which commemorated this crucialmoment in Japanese history and its impact, stillfelt today, on the course of Japanese history,lives and events. The conference took place atTel Aviv University under the title The West inJapanese Imagination/ Japan in WesternImagination, and its purpose was to look at thecultural, political, societal, and artisticexchanges that accompanied the process ofmodernization.

As part of its mobilization and development,Japan faced the rise of newly adopted

discourses and practices, which included theshift into industrialization and capitalism, theemphasis on scientific research and academicknowledge, and the fortification of nation-stateand national sentiment as leading politicaldiscourses, which eventually becameassociated with imperialism and colonialism.Imperialism is often understood as theacquisition of lands for power and economicgrowth, driven by the need for extra land tosupport and boost agricultural and industrialprocesses, namely, by exploiting raw materialsand other resources from conquered lands. Onthe other hand, colonialism is a process wherethe inhabitants of the colonized lands areforced to adopt the rulers’ ideologies, culture,practices and purposes.

With industrialization taking firm hold in Japan,and capitalist practices informing the mainfinancial and social approaches acrossgovernment and financial institutions, otherideologies such as nationalism and colonialism– the latter a process initiated in the late daysof the Edo period (bakumatsu) – gradually tookroot, linking modernity with the signs of thenewly formed nation-state, and justifyingexpansion into territories overseas. There wasone more important aspect that fueled theprocess of modernity (with its attendantprocesses of nationalism, colonialism,industrialization/capitalism): with scientific andhistorical research at its core, racism becamethe accepted logic of political acts andpractices, separating human beings underracist values and categorizations. Europe, inparticular, fostered a sense of superiority asthe “white man” over the “natives” of colonizedlands in Asia, Oceania, Africa and America – anattitude that went hand in hand with themassive amounts of power and greed behindcapitalist, nationalist and imperialist practices,and that was subsequently endorsed bycultural, racist worldviews justifyingexploitative practices across colonies underEuropean colonial power. These worldviewsmade much use of scientific research, usually

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

3

in the form of physical anthropology and itswidespread axioms.1

F i g u r e 2 : S h i i n a S u k e m a s a ,Yachigashira (Hakodate) Ainu Schoolwith Charles Nettle (seated, centrethird row) and his wife (seated, thirdrow, second from left), Rev. WalterAndrews (seated, third row, third fromright), and Rev. George Cecil Niven(seated, third row, second from right),1897. 9.5 X 13.5 cm. @ HakodateCentral Library.

Figure 3: Soldiers of the Japaneseexpedition under Commander-in-chiefSaigō Jūdō (西郷 従道 1843-1902),pictured with leaders of Seqalu (Nativetribe of Taiwan), 1874 @ YasukuniShrine archives.

Japan’s process of modernization wasaccompanied by the adoption of theseideologies and practices, driving Japan’sleaders to establish their nation-state, theimagined community of “Japan,” and to followthe racial discourse dominating the politicalsphere, with a small twist: although Japan hadbeen grouped with other Asian nations in theprevailing discourses of race, it neverthelessstrove to associate itself with the white,European/Western race. Leaders andideologists, for example, assigned inferiorracial attributes to the different groups andethnicities on or around the Japanese islands,gradually pulling Japan away from Asia, andcloser to Europe. The Meiji era (1868–1912),therefore, saw Japan’s passage into modernityand identification as a modern state first withinits own boundaries, and then, in terms ofbroader affiliations and international relations,Japan’s efforts to associate itself with Euro-American processes, developments and racialdiscourses, simultaneously distancing itselffrom Asia in general, China (and Korea), in

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

4

particular.2

Figure 4: General Kuroki Tamemoto(黒木 為楨1844-1923) and his army, onthe balconies of the ChangdeokgungPalace (昌德宮) in Seoul, 1905.

While it would be impossible to thoroughlyexamine the enormous changes that took placeover the course of this period, the articles inthis issue aim to highlight some cases andquest ions at the center o f Japaneseengagement with concepts of race and empire,as well as how these ideas came to shapeideology and political practices in the Meiji era.Each of the articles tackle these issues throughexplorations of Japan’s direct (at times,personal) exchanges with European leadersand ideologists, invited specialists, missions,journeys and individual encounters in Europeand the USA. Such exchanges had beendesigned as opportunities to learn, explore andadapt Western ideologies, technologies,practices, political and financial systems,industrial and scientific knowledge, with theend goal of situating Japan on a new stage ofdevelopment paralleling that of Europe, wherethe Japanese “race” was equivalent to the“white race” of Europe.

Figure 5: The Iwakura Mission.T o m o m i I w a k u r a (岩倉 具視1825–1883) , Head of the Mission, isseated at the centre, in traditionalclothing, London, 1872.

Mark E. Caprio’s article discusses the questionof making Japan equivalent to the “white race”in his analysis of the Iwakura Mission’s visit tothe United States and Europe (1871-1873). Oneof the first, most involved encounters betweenJapanese officials and the West, the Mission leftJapan just after the Meiji government hadassumed administrative responsibilities in1868, seeking information on institutions thatcould reorganize Japan’s geographicalboundaries, as well as its governmental bodiesand prefectural relations. Through its travels,the Mission also encountered nationsembarking on a new phase of imperialexpansion, which set off a debate among theMission’s participants: while the majorityreturned with visions of Japan becoming anempire, others saw their country’s future as asmall, neutral state, following the example ofSwiss diplomatic neutrality. The debate overthese visions carried over into the Taishōperiod as Japan incorporated territories at itsperipheries, including Ezo (Hokkaidō) the

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

5

Ryūkyū islands (Okinawa), Taiwan, Sakhalin(Karafuto) and Korea. With these developmentsin mind, Caprio’s article examines the impact ofthe Mission participants’ views, which wereinformed by their first- and second-handexperiences of American and Europeanamalgamation of peoples of diverse cultural,ethnic, and racial origins. Such experiencesshaped the participants’ views of Japan’s futureas an expansionist state, and taught them aboutthe possibilities of turning assimilation into acentralized Japanese discourse.

Tarik Merida’s article adds another layer to thediscussion on Japan’s engagement with racialbeliefs and practices in the West, analyzing thetime when Japan, already advanced andmodernized, was seen as a racial other fromthe American perspective, even as Japan’sinternational relations had become interracialand complex in its identification with Asia.Since the age of exploration, “scientific” andgeopolitical development had become mutuallyreinforcing concepts, propping up the idea of asuperior “white race” meant to rule overvarious “nonwhites.” The problem was fittingJapan into this set of relations, a task that wasbecoming increasingly difficult. Officially“yellow” on paper, the Japanese people had, bythe end of the nineteenth century, reached the“standard of civilization” – that is, theprerequisites that marked a modern nation, andthat were seen as default and exclusiveidentifiers of the “white race.” Japan reachingthe “standard of civilization” thereforegenerated the anomaly of a “colored race”exhibiting qualities otherwise understood asbeyond their capacity. In response, UnitedStates President Theodore Roosevelt(1858–1919) devised a space of negotiation,where Japanese people were granted privilegedracial status, allowing them to temporarilycircumvent the prejudices that beset other“colored races,” particularly the Chinese andKorean immigrants in California – the verysame communities from which Japaneseimmigrants wanted to dissociate themselves.3

When Japan embarked on the process ofmodernization – bolstered by the nationalismand racism that were, in turn, shaped by 19thCentury scientific research – it was led byconcepts of classification and categorization. Asa result, racial discourses gradually becamemainstream knowledge and attitude, with Japanstruggling with its own position between Asiaand Europe.4 One strategy that helped positionJapan closer to Europe and “white (race)supremacy” was the act of identifying nationsand ethnic groups that were “lesser,” or“inferior” to Japan, and in doing so, markingJapan’s practices and policies as superior andmore European.

Figure 6: Fukuzawa Yukichi’s (福澤諭吉1835-1901) Sekai Kunizukushi (世界国尽)

Originally published in 1869.

In Elena Baibikow’s article, we learn how theeducation system worked towards this goal,and how values of the newly modern, Europe-oriented Japan were taught to children.Baibikov’s research looks into FukuzawaYukichi’s (福澤諭吉 1835-1901) educationalgeography textbook, which was written forchildren. Originally published in 1869, it wasrecently upgraded and republished in 2017. Itis clear that this book played an important rolein determining early Meiji concepts of

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

6

geography and the subsequent organization ofthe world’s population. In the field of textbookresearch, argues Baibikov, it has been longestablished that schoolbooks are culturallydetermined, funct ioning not only aspedagogical apparatus, but also as culturaltexts that expose deeper trends and educators’visions for the next generation. Recent socio-historical scholarship of early Meiji textbooksprovides insights into the formation of socialconsciousness and the transformation ofJapan’s position vis-à-vis its geopolitical Othersat the time, developments that came aboutinter alia through hierarchy-based discussionsof race and civilization. Fukuzawa’s elementarygeography book Sekai kunizukushi (All theCountries of the World) was one of the mostinfluential Meiji textbooks. Some 150 yearsafter Sekai kunizukushi's initial publication, amore recent edition was published under thetitle Learning about the World throughFukuzawa Yukichi’s Sekai kunizukushi, whichw a s a c c o m p a n i e d b y c o m m e n t a r y ,gendaigoyaku (translation into modernlanguage) and other extra-textual features.Baibikov takes a constructionist approach tothe hierarchy of images depicting race andcivilization, as introduced in the originaltextbook, and compares them to their“recycled” versions.

The discourses of race and empire were centralto the making of the modern Japanese state andmodern Japanese identity, having significantlyshaped the core ideologies behind Japan’sexpansion policies, which were first enacted inthe neighboring territories annexed to Japan.By the late Edo period, Japan had alreadyannexed Hokkaidō, as well as the Kuril Islandsjust north of the island, specifically throughtreaties Japan had negotiated with Russia.Subsequently, the Ryūkyū Kingdom wasgradually occupied, until its formal annexationin 1879, which indicated the kingdom’ssuccessful colonization. Afterwards, Japangradually moved into other territories (Taiwan,Southern Sakhalin and Korea), before

embarking on a full-scale war in north-east andsouth-east Asia, driven by an imperial andcolonial desire.5

Yet, as has been commonly understood inrecent decades, it was largely ideology,imagination, repressed desires, and greed atwork in this process.6 Far from the image of“scientific truth” or “proven knowledge,”Japan’s expansionist practices, as well as itsefforts to align itself with Europe markedideological, practical steps towards “leavingAsia.”7 At the same time, the likelihood ofobtaining the same status as Europe seemedslim, as European nations, along with theUnited States, showed clear signs that theywould not accept Japan as one of the elite,leading powers, nor did they do so evendecades later.8 Japan was ultimately acceptedto the League of Nations, but then experienceda second round of what the Japaneseadministration saw as “unequal” treaties. Thetensions between the desire to leave Asiabehind and the uncertain prospect of equalitywith Europe underlie many of Japan’s decisionsduring those years.9

Japan’s two-pronged path into modernitytherefore involved, on one hand, self-definitionas “Japan” the nation-state against outsidecountries (外国gaikoku).1 0 The task ofdifferentiating Japanese culture entailed thedemarcation of Japan’s histories from those ofAsia, detailing Japan’s cultural specificity,11

while essentializing “Asia” as its Other. On theother hand, the desire to adopt Europeanvalues and norms, to align Japan with Europeancultures engendered Japan’s impulse forcomparison, as evidenced by the constantcomparisons between Japanese life andachievements, and their counterparts in variousEuropean countries. In the process ofobserving, expanding, and retaining whichstrategies would be useful for Japan’smodernization process, the Japaneseadministration came to understand a greatvariety of cultures and conduct simply as

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

7

strong or weak. The double movement ofassociation with Europe and distancing fromAsia produced a new subtext to the binaryopposition between the “advanced” and“sophisticated” versus the “primitive” and“simple-minded.” That is, the logic behindWestern colonialism was re-applied to relationsbetween Asian nations and cultures, withoutthe explicit binaries of East and West.Ultimately, this double movement laid thefoundations for racial ideologies and imperialpractices.12

Figure 7: Tamoto Kenzō, Demolishinghard rocks for mountain road no. 737in Musawa, Meiji 5 (1872) Albumenprint 14.5X20cm. @ Northern StudiesCollection, Hokkaidō University.

On one hand, Japan aspired to Westerncivilization standards as it harbored a sense of“ infer ior i ty” (especia l ly in terms oftechnological and scientific accomplishments),and on the other, Japanese leaders adopted theWestern stance of “superiority” over the rest ofAsia, deeming the latter’s various cultures andpeoples “inferior.”13 This perspective translatedinto action in Japan’s encounters with theneighboring islands of Hokkaidō and Ryūkyū,as discussed in Pia Jolliffe and Stanislaw

Meyer’s pieces, as well as with Taiwan, andlater, even farther Asian nations, such asKorea, Manchuria, and Mongolia, with whichJapan had had long-standing cultural relations.In the process of adapting Western culturaldiscourses, Japanese government bodiesworked to align Japan’s development with theenlightenment and progress it associated withEurope and white civilizations.14 At the sametime, Japan sought to distinguish itself fromAsia, especially China, a major source ofinfluence that had significantly shapedJapanese culture over the course of theprevious millennium.

Closer to home, the ideological and politicalleaders of Meiji Japan saw the Ainu of Ezo(Hokkaidō) in the north, and the local culturesof the Ryūkyū Kingdom in the south, as“primitive” and “underdeveloped.”15 Ezo wasalready known to such leaders in the Edoperiod, thanks to Matsuura Takeshirō (松浦武四郎1818–1888), who had traversed Ezo andSakhalin on foot between 1846 and 1858,reaching as far as Etorofu (択捉島, Ru: Iturup)in the Kuril Islands. Matsuura recorded thenames of places and Ainu sites on Ezo,publishing them in a series called, “Survey Mapof the Mountains, Rivers and Geography of Eastand West Ezo” (1859).1 6 In the RyūkyūKingdom, Japanese rule and involvement beganas early as 1607, with the Satsuma clan thefirst to invade and rule over the islands.17

Unlike Matsuura’s ostensibly objective landsurvey and research into Ezo, the early Meijiera was marked by a drastically differentattitude, one that racialized Japan’s neighbors,and sought to conquer the lands of “incapable”ethnic groups. At one extreme, Meij iadministrators even sought to exterminate suchgroups, as was the case of the Ainu in Ezo.Elsewhere, they tried to re-educate thesegroups on the aspects and values of Japaneseculture, which was the case in Ryūkyū (nowOkinawa, the name of the archipelago’s mainisland), as well as in Taiwan, Karafuto (South

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

8

Sakhalin), and Korea. In implementing suchstrategies, Japan was able to subsequentlyidentify itself as “superior” and “enlightened,”in contrast to such groups newly identified as“primitive” and “incapable.” This process wasespecially evident in Hokkaidō, where the landwas perceived as a “blank slate” awaiting re-interpretation and the progressive movement ofmodern Japan.18

The problems that arose from the annexation ofHokkaidō and the Ryūkyūs were numerous, andchallenged Japanese authorities’ abilities tocope with Japan’s expanding territories, as wellas with the ethnic groups that had heretoforenot been considered Japanese. The authoritiestherefore had to debate the best way toincorporate these new territories and theirassets, such as raw materials and land forcultivation, into the Japanese system. PiaJolliffe’s article examines the role of forcedlabour in the context of Ezo/Hokkaidō’scolonization, drawing attention to how differentgroups of subaltern people – the indigenousAinu, political convicts, indentured labourersand Korean workers – contributed to themaking of imperial Japan’s first colony and thebuilding of the modern Japanese nation state.Yet, though they worked for the same Japaneseruling class, these subaltern labourers were notunited. Jolliffe highlights how their experienceswere largely shaped along ethnic, genderedand generational lines.

Figure 8: King Shō Tai (尚泰 1843-1901), thelast king of the independent Ryūkyū

Kingdom.

Stanislaw Meyer’s article turns to the other endof the archipelago, and introduces the Meijigovernment’s policy on Okinawa, which hassparked heated debate among Japanese andOkinawan scholars. The controversiesparticularly concerned the early years ofJapanese rule in Okinawa, following the RyūkyūKingdom’s annexation in 1879, when theJapanese government, having met withopposition from Ryūkyūan aristocracy, decidedto postpone structural reforms in theprefecture for the sake of political stability. Asa result, Okinawa remained the poorest andmost forgotten region in Japan until the early20th Century, frozen in the structures offeudalism. The growing gap between Okinawaand mainland Japan contributed to theemergence of negative stereotypes of and

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

9

social discrimination against Ryūkyū people inJapanese society. Once the governmentinitiated Okinawa’s integration into mainlandJapan, Okinawan society was subjected to apolicy of assimilation, engendering an identitycrisis among many people on the islands.Seeing that Okinawa was unable to overcomethe stereotype of a backward, peripheralprefecture, even the most fervent pro-Japanadvocates, such as journalist Ōta Chōfu(1865–1938), acknowledged that Japan treatedOkinawa like a colony. Yet, in many respects,Okinawans’ experiences of Japanese rule differfrom those of the Ainu, Taiwanese and Koreans.In order to understand Japan’s policy onOkinawa, Meyer considers the followingfactors: Okinawa (along with Hokkaidō, theKuril Islands and Ogasawara Islands) wasincorporated during the early stages of theJapanese modern nation state’s formation. Atthe time, there was no clear concept of a“Japanese nation,” and it was only after theSino-Japanese War that Japan drew a clear lineof distinction between “Japan proper” and itscolonies, between Japanese people andJapanese subjects. Unlike Hokkaidō, Okinawahad no natural resources and was of little valueto the Japanese economy. As a result, Okinawaescaped physical colonization and massmigration from mainland Japan to Okinawa.These developments, argues Meyer, are theclues to understanding why Okinawa wasnearly absent in Japanese colonial discourse, aswell as why the Okinawan people were notdemonized as barbarians. Had Okinawa been arich land, Japan would most likely have coinedan ideology justifying its appropriation,especially on the grounds of Japanese people’sracial superiority, as was the case in Hokkaidō.Unlike other colonial subjects, race was not afactor determining Okinawans’ status inJapanese society, although Japanese people’sattitudes towards them often bordered onracism. Crucially, there was no institutionaldiscrimination against Okinawan people basedon racial or ethnic criteria. At the same time,there was relatively little resistance in Okinawa

against Japanese rule: from the 1890s,Okinawans took initiative in promotingJapanese culture and patriotism. Not only hadOkinawans adopted a Japanese identity, butthey also strove to establish links between theJapanese and Okinawan peoples. SeeingOkinawans’ zeal in becoming Japanese, Japangradually changed its approach to andadministrative practices for Okinawa.

In contrast, the Meiji administration’s approachto modernizing and making Hokkaidō moreJapanese served as the blueprint for its colonialcampaigns overseas, in Taiwan, Korea,Karafuto, and Manchuria. Mid-nineteenthcentury racial discourses served as theideology behind the occupation of thesenations, as well as the justification for Japan’sdissemination of ideology via the establishmentof state Shintō, the construction of shrinesthroughout the colonies, and the promotion ofJapanese language as the means o facculturating “native” populations.19 Officersand scholars who had trained and worked inHokkaidō were recruited to carry out Japan’spolicies throughout the empire, where theysubsequently drew on their previousexperiences.20 Race and empire were thusentangled concepts behind both theory andpractice, enabling and serving to justify Japan’sprocess of becoming the biggest imperial superpower in East Asia.

The articles in this special issue discussdifferent aspects of building the Japaneseempire through racial ization, takingcomparative approaches to Europe and Asia,and Japan’s repeated efforts to associate itselfwith the West by adopting various Europeanand American cultural values. This special issuefurther expands on the concepts of race andempire in the polit ical, economic andadministrative discourses and practices innewly annexed territories (Hokkaidō andOkinawa), as well as in the ways schooltextbooks conveyed such concepts to the newgeneration of the Meiji era. The much later

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

10

adaptation, translation and re-publication ofsuch textbooks indicate how their conceptspersist to some degree even in contemporaryJapan. The case studies presented herehighlight how Japan wrestled with its ownposition and political orientations, strugglingwith “scientific” and ideological frameworks, aswell as with debates about its imperialfrontiers. Ultimately, Japan’s move to associateitself with the “white race,” to position itselfamong the leading nations of Europe, exacted aheavy price on the complex relationshipsbetween multiple ethnicities and identities inthe Japanese archipelago itself, as well as inthe lands traversed during Japan’s imperialexpansion across Asia. It is particularly thelatter where inequality and racism took root,yet to be fully addressed or reconciled in thepresent day.

Bibliography

Books

Paul D. Barclay, Outcasts of Empire: Japan’sRule on Taiwan’s “Savage Border,” 1874–1945(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,2017).

Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of ScientificRacism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britainand the United States between the World Wars(New York: Cambridge University Press,1992).

Hilary Conroy and Wayne Patterson, ed. Japanin Transition: Thought and Action in the MeijiEra, 1868-1912 (London: Fairleigh DicksonUniversity Press, 1984).

Carol Gluck, Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in

the Late Meiji Period (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1985).

Marius Jansen, The Making of Modern Japan(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,2002).

Michele Mason, Dominant Narratives ofColonial Hokkaido and Imperial JapanEnvisioning the Periphery and the ModernNation-State (London & New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2012).

Matsuura Takeshiro (松浦武四郎). Ezo nisshi(蝦夷日誌) (Tokyo: Jiji Tsushinsha, 1962);Takakura Shinichirō (高倉新一郎), Takeshirokaiho nikki (武四郎廻浦日記)(Sapporo:Hokkaido Shuppan Kikaku Senta, 1978);

__________________________. Matsuura Takeshirozenshū (松浦武四郎選集) [Complete works ofMatsuura Takeshiro] (Sapporo: HokkaidoShuppan Kikaku Senta, 1996–2008).

Michael S. Neiberg, The Treaty of Versailles: AConcise History (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2017).

Okakura Kakuzō (岡倉覚三), The Book ofTea (茶の本) [Cha no Hon] (New York:Duffield & Company, 1906).

_____________, The Ideals of the East withSpecial Reference to the Art of Japan (London:John Murray, 1920).

Stefan Tanaka, Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pastsinto History (Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press, 1993).

Robert Thomas Tierney, Tropics of Savagery:The Culture of Japanese Empire in ComparativeFrame (Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress, 2010).

Michael Weiner, ed., Japan’s Minorities: TheIllusion of Homogeneity (London: Routledge,1997); Barbara Poisson Aoki, The Ainu of Japan(Minneapolis, MI: Lerner Publications, 2002).

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

11

Henk L. Wesseling, European colonial empires1815-1919 (London and New York: Routledge,2016).

____________, Imperialism and Colonialism:Essays on the History of European Expansion(Westport, CT and London : Greenwood, 1997).

Yoshida Takejō (吉田武三), Zoho MatsuuraTakeshiro (増補松浦武四郎) (Tokyo: MatsuuraTakeshiro Den Kankokai, 1966).

______________. Sanko Ezo nisshi (三航蝦夷日誌)(Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1970).

Articles

Michael Adas, “Imperialism and Colonialism inComparative Perspective,” The InternationalHistory Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1998): 371-388.

Robert Eskildsen, “Of Civilization and Savages:The Mimetic Imperialism of Japan’s 1874Expedition to Taiwan,” American HistoricalReview vol. 107, no. 2 (2002): 388–418.

Fukuzawa Yukichi （福澤諭吉) Bunmeiron noGairyaku (文明論之概略) [An Outline of aTheory of Civilization] (1875),

_______________. “Datsu-A ron,” FukuzawaYukichi zenshū, dai 10 kan (Tokyo: Iwanamishoten, 1970 [1885] ):238-240.

Karatani Kōjin, “Japan as Art Museum: OkakuraTenshin and Fenollosa,” in A History of ModernJapanese Aesthetics, ed. and trans. MichaelMarra, 43–52 (Honolulu, HI: University ofHawai’i Press, 2001).

Nakajima Michio, “Shinto Deities That Crossedthe Sea: Japan’s ‘Overseas Shrines,’ 1868 to1945,” Japanese Journal of ReligiousStudies vol. 37, no. 1 (2010): 21–46.

Pekka Korhonen, “Leaving Asia? The Meaningof Datsu-A and Japan’s Modern History,” TheAsia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Vol. 11, Issue50, No. 1, March 3, 2014. Article 4083

M o r r i s L a w , “ P h y s i c a lAnthropology in Japan the Ainu and the Searchf o r t h e O r i g i n s o f t h e J a p a n e s e , ”Current Anthropology Vol.53, Supplement 5(April 2012): S57-S68.

Tessa Morris-Suzuki, “Race,” in: Re-inventingJapan: Time, Space, Nation (New York: Sharpe,1998).

Sakamoto Rumi, “Japan, Hybridity and theCreation of Colonialist Discourse,” Theory,Culture & Society vol. 13, no. 3 (August 1996):113–28.

Suga Kōji, “A Concept of ‘Overseas ShintoShrines’: A Pantheistic Attempt by OgasawaraShōzō and Its Limitations,” Japanese Journal ofReligious Studies vol. 37, no.1 (2010): 47–74.

Uemura Hideaki, “The colonial annexation ofOkinawa and the logic on international law: theformation of an ‘indigenous people’ in EastAsia” Japanese Studies vol. 23, no. 2 (Winter2003): 213–222.

Uehara Kezen (上原兼善).　“Shimazu ClanRaid of the Ryūkyū: Another Invasion (of Korea1597-8)” (「島津氏の琉球侵略 : もう一つの慶長の役」) Ryūkyū Arc Series No. 19 (April 2009)『琉球弧叢書;19))』2009年4月。

This article is a part of the special issue: Race and Empire in Meiji Japan. Please see theTable of Contents.

APJ | JF 18 | 20 | 2

12

Ayelet Zohar (PhD, University of London) is a Senior Lecturer at the Art History Dept., TelAviv University. Zohar specializes in the study of Japanese photography, from the Meiji Era tocontemporary practices. She is the editor (together with Alison J. Miller) of The Visual Cultureof Meiji Japan: Negotiating the Transition to Modernity (forthcoming, Routledge, 2021).

Contact: azohar@tauex.tau.ac.il

Notes1 Much had been written on the abolition of Race Science or Physical Anthropology in recentyears. See, for example: Barkan (1992) and Law (2012).2 Morris-Suzuki, 79-109.3 See: Wesseling (1997 and 2016); Adas (1998).4 Conroy and Patterson (1984).5 Jansen, 414-455.6 Tanaka (1993).7 Known as Datsu-A Ron 脱亜論Fukuzawa (1970[1885]). See also: Korhonen (2014).8 Korhonen (2014) and Neiberg (2017).9 Gluck (1985).10 The term for outside countries was borrowed from Chinese and used primarily during theMeiji period to refer to non-Asian/European cultures, which, in the Japanese imagination,served as perfect models for the remaking of its own image. Sakamoto (1996).11 Okakura Kakuzō 岡倉覚三 notably attempted to identify Japan within the Asian sphere, asan opposition to the “Occident,” by using a terminology of “East” and “West.” See: Okakura(1906) and Okakura (1920). A critique of Okakura’s approach is found in Karatani (2001). Fora further critique of Japan’s relation to Asia in general and China in particular, see Tanaka(1993).12 Barclay (2017); Uemura (2003); Tierney (2010).13 Tanaka, 134-141.14 See for example, Fukzawa [1875] which was influenced by François Guizot’s Histoire de lacivilisation en Europe (1828; Eng. trans in 1846) and Henry Thomas Buckle’s History ofCivilization in England (1872).15 Mason 57-81; Weiner (2002). 16 Matsuura’s text appears in several volumes. See: Matsuura (1978); Matsuura (1996-2008);Yoshida (1966 and 1970).17 Uemura (2003); Uehara (2009). 18 Mason, “Introduction: Peripheral Visions Reimagining Colonial Hokkaidō,” 2.19 Nakajima (2010); and Suga (2010).20 Eskildsen (2002).