The perspective of each source is clearly different. I think that they both must have elements of truth because in order for Japan to have so much success, it must have used its own ideas as well as the benefits from other countries ideas, actions, and mistakes. Japan became one of the most powerful countries in just a few years, so I think that it must have taken a lot to improve the country so much.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Change of Japan Theory
My original thesis based on the documents we read in class is: "The Japanese exploit other countries' ideas while simultaneously shooting down the powers that have influenced them." Through the documents we read in class, our class concluded that Japan's success was significantly due to outside countries. The reading from Strayer definitely shows a new perspective. The fact that Japan had criticism of other countries' ideas and actions remained true, even after reading the text. However, Japan is not portrayed as reliant on other countries like it is in the documents. Instead, Japan was barely in contact with the outside world. Japan chose to be isolated from other countries and run off its own ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I though it was the other way around. In the documents Japan seemed to not have to rely on western influence as much, but in the textbook they show Japan's openness to adopting western ideals and technology.
ReplyDeleteHello, Kevin! I too thought it was the other way around. The view I got from the documents was that Japan was more self reliant, and it was the book that told us about how Japan used the western ideas to help themselves.
ReplyDeleteKev - I too agree with James and Taylor. I think your ideas are valid, but they match the wrong sources. With some name switching, your blog post can become credible. Aside from that, I think your second paragraph effectively sums up your gathered information and analyzes it well. It connects the two different perspectives and creates a central point.
ReplyDelete