Nothing to do with "save the Uyghurs." The fact is that if the Soviets wanted to, they could easily prevent those areas from being absorbed by a surviving ROC. And they probably would. Also, the PRC only took Tibet after it unified the rest mainland China. If the ROC cant defeat the PRC in Manchuria, they may not have the resources to assert control elsewhere.
A Brighter Sunrise: more reforms in post-war Japan | WWII apologies, work culture, civil rights, no stagnant economy, digital tech
Sorry. It's just that I've seen too many people resort to this trick of balkanizing Xinjiang for no valid reason, sometimes even if China keeps all the rest of its territory. And normally the resulting States are Uyghur democratic utopias (nothing is mentioned about other ethnic groups) even if they have the USSR on one side and the PRC on the other. Which pretty much screams it's for that reason
A significant proportion of Japanese government and businesses are said to use outdated technology like faxes.
But this is not unique to Japan - the same is also true for its former Axis partner, Germany. Factors contributing to a lack of digital adoption include bureaucratic conservatism in organizations (focus on incremental innovation, consensus-based decision making) and an aging population (who are less likely to use digital services), i.e. the same issues that affect the economy and tech industry of OTL Japan. There are also concerns over data privacy (since the Nazis and post-war East Germany were big on surveillance), and the lack of a central government plan for digitalization.
But this is not unique to Japan - the same is also true for its former Axis partner, Germany. Factors contributing to a lack of digital adoption include bureaucratic conservatism in organizations (focus on incremental innovation, consensus-based decision making) and an aging population (who are less likely to use digital services), i.e. the same issues that affect the economy and tech industry of OTL Japan. There are also concerns over data privacy (since the Nazis and post-war East Germany were big on surveillance), and the lack of a central government plan for digitalization.
Last edited:
The difference is that no one (including the government) built up an expectation of Germany being or becoming a technological superpower. While Japan in TTL would not have that reputation in the 1980s and 1990s, it would come to be known as a major producer of consumer electronics and software in the 2000s or 2010s.
Last edited:
In theory, yes, given that they managed to remain the world's second largest economy, aspiring to be the first, even with foundations as unsound as those of their bubble. It would not be surprising if, with stronger foundations and better financial management, they managed to stay in a solid third place. Even if they take a little longer to get there.
Think of it as ensuring Japan can develop a stronger digital/software-based economy in the post-1980s era. There is still enough redevelopment enabled by the Korean War, but recovery is slower until the 21st century in which newer technologies can be taken advantage of.
The "Innovator's Dilemma" refers to "how large incumbent companies lose market share by listening to their customers and providing what appears to be the highest-value products, but new companies that serve low-value customers with poorly developed technology can improve that technology incrementally until it is good enough to quickly and take market share from established business." So Japan's boom was too successful leaving its economy dependent on analog hardware manufacturing and not the new technological paradigm. And in this timeline, Sony (or a company like it) might not be as famous in the 1980s, but would be competitive with Apple and Samsung in the 2010s.
Last edited:
IMO another thing that should be addressed is why the discourse and perceptions of Japan are so often in conflict with the available international data. For instance Japan being regarded as the most overworked country on Earth, a dystopian slave worker society with no workers rights, while international data from the OECD ranks Japan close to the OECD average in hours worked per worker, while the ITUC Global Rights Index rates Japan similarly to other developed countries on workers rights, and while ILO/WHO global estimates on deaths related to overwork found Japan close to the global average, albeit higher than many developed countries (but the data was also from 2016, before recent labor reforms that further cut down on overwork) etc.
There is a similar pattern for international data on areas like xenophobia, civil rights and certain other social issues, but the point is that perceptions on Japan are quite often out of sync with the available international rankings (the main exception seems to be macroeconomic performance and industrial competitiveness, where data and perception do match). So perhaps Japan is simply engaged in institutional falsification of data, but if so that should still be addressed in this alternate timeline (e.g. a Japan that is actually honest with data reporting).
But if the issue also lies with the international discourse, then it's not simply Japan that would need to change.
There is a similar pattern for international data on areas like xenophobia, civil rights and certain other social issues, but the point is that perceptions on Japan are quite often out of sync with the available international rankings (the main exception seems to be macroeconomic performance and industrial competitiveness, where data and perception do match). So perhaps Japan is simply engaged in institutional falsification of data, but if so that should still be addressed in this alternate timeline (e.g. a Japan that is actually honest with data reporting).
But if the issue also lies with the international discourse, then it's not simply Japan that would need to change.
Last edited:
The usual claim I see from Japan critics is that there is unreported/underreported overtime. They also cite the Gender Gap Report in which Japan is 120th as of 2021.
Last edited:
On a separate note, I find it curious how Germany is the leading economic power in Europe. Its per capita income is higher than all other major European economies and comparable to countries like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands. In fact, they might even surpass Japan as the third largest economy within this decade, looking at the current GDP trajectories! Yet Germany is also one of the least digitalized economies in the region. From the data I've seen, they are even behind Japan when it comes to cashless payments. It suggests to me that a lack of digitalization isn't necessarily as huge a roadblock to economic performance as some have made it out. While it might play some role, I suspect it's not the main reason for Japan's economic rout.
As I cited in the migrant worker example, I think part of the problem lies in the Western/American discourse (normally those kinds of reports come from the US) which is much more willing to judge Japan harshly for things that, if they happen, in Germany or the United States, they would be overlooked or even apologized for.
By itinerant worker I mean the apparently very common policy in multinationals of moving workers from one branch to another every six months on average.
This policy, despite being the same in both countries, I have seen described as:
- Tremendously detrimental to the company and the worker. Since it generates instability in the work teams, uncertainty for the worker, It does not give the worker time to train enough to be able to specialize (so that he ends up being "a student of many and a teacher of none"). And translates into a brutal reduction in efficiency and effectiveness by placing in work teams newcomers who have no idea what has been done.
-Extremely beneficial for both the company and the worker. Since it makes it possible to avoid institutional inbreeding and stagnation, it favors the exchange of ideas and communication between the different sectors of the company, in addition to being proof of the superior strength and adaptability of the company and the workers. Incorporating new members to the team translates into an increase in efficiency and effectiveness as they bring new points of view.
In case it hasn't been obvious by now: the first example is what is said about Japan and the second is what is said about the United States.
By itinerant worker I mean the apparently very common policy in multinationals of moving workers from one branch to another every six months on average.
This policy, despite being the same in both countries, I have seen described as:
- Tremendously detrimental to the company and the worker. Since it generates instability in the work teams, uncertainty for the worker, It does not give the worker time to train enough to be able to specialize (so that he ends up being "a student of many and a teacher of none"). And translates into a brutal reduction in efficiency and effectiveness by placing in work teams newcomers who have no idea what has been done.
-Extremely beneficial for both the company and the worker. Since it makes it possible to avoid institutional inbreeding and stagnation, it favors the exchange of ideas and communication between the different sectors of the company, in addition to being proof of the superior strength and adaptability of the company and the workers. Incorporating new members to the team translates into an increase in efficiency and effectiveness as they bring new points of view.
In case it hasn't been obvious by now: the first example is what is said about Japan and the second is what is said about the United States.
Last edited:
I'm looking for the article about Americans. As for the Japanese one, it was one that you put in one of your threads about Japan, I don't remember which one.
When it comes specifically to underreporting working hours, it's certainly possible, but why the assumption that it only happens in Japan and not in other developed countries? And there's still the WHO/ILO estimate on deaths related to overwork, which clearly doesn't rank Japan as No. 1, rather close to the global average.
That said, it's interesting how Japan is the only developed country that's regularly accused of fudging its data, while all other developed countries are assumed to be inherently honest. This Reddit thread might as well be considered emblematic of this phenomenon. What makes Japan so much more intrinsically untrustworthy than other developed countries?
Indeed, the Global Gender Gap Report is one of few rankings that are consistent with perceptions on Japan, and a lack of female representation in top economic and political positions is one area where Japan lags behind most countries in the world. But the question isn't whether Japan has social issues or not, it's whether they are doing markedly worse than other developed countries across the board, which after all is the default premise of this timeline exercise. And bluntly speaking, the data suggests that's not the case, while the discourse clearly does. What to make of this contradiction?
Here are some examples (non-exhaustive):
Japan being considered a place where students study themselves to death, while an OECD PISA survey of students found that high school students in Japan studied some of the least hours per week among 72 countries (PISA 2015 Volume II, pp. 208-215).
Japan being considered a place where student bullying is ingrained in the culture, while separate surveys from the OECD and TIMSS found incidents of bullying in Japan were lower than most other countries (OECD PISA 2015 Volume III, pp. 134-137).
On teenage suicide rates, where Japan is close to the OECD average. And overall suicide rates, where Japan is somewhere between the US and Australia.
Japan being considered one of the most socially conservative countries on Earth, while a Pew Research Center survey found Japan to be relatively tolerant on social/moral issues. The World Values Survey also finds Japan to lean toward "self-expression values" on the aggregate, which is linked with tolerance and individualism.
Japan being considered the most xenophobic place on Earth, while surveys from Pew Research Center and Gallup finds Japan to be not so much an outlier in terms of tolerance toward migrants. Perhaps even more confoundingly, World Happiness Report 2018 finds Japan to be practically the only country where migrants report being happier than the native-born (in absolute terms, migrants in Japan were happier than migrants in Germany and France). In pretty much every other country migrants report being less happy than native-born people, which the report attributes to xenophobia.
Japan being considered a place with extremely strict immigration laws, while the data doesn't seem to be much different than other developed countries, at least for labor migration and family reunification, as well as easiness of obtaining permanent residency and naturalization. Rather, the low levels of immigration to Japan seems more attributable to the fact relatively few want to migrate there. A 2014 paper by Fitzgerald et al. finds Japan will struggle to attract immigrants no matter how lenient their immigration laws are. Their models suggest even if Japan adopts the most generous immigration laws allowed in their scenarios it will still lag behind other developed countries in inflows (and Japan is not far from there in any case).
Japan being considered an authoritarian police state where innocent people live in constant fear of being detained and convicted through forced confessions in their ruthless and corrupt justice system, while Japan ranks average among developed countries in the Rule of Law Index, including the Criminal Justice subcategory, while having a lower pre-trial detention rate and incarceration rate than most countries.
Japan being considered a place with very poor civil liberties and constant violations of rights, while Freedom House ranks Japan as quite average among developed countries in civil liberties. The Democracy Index also has a "civil liberties" subcategory where the same pattern plays out.
Japan being considered one of the most nationalistic countries in the world where there is a strong nostalgia among their populace for their former Empire, while surveys find those in Japan to be some of the least nationalistic, with relatively low levels of imperial nostalgia among former colonial powers.
Japan being considered a collectivist society... I'll just refer to Noah Smith.
I could go on, but the examples are just endless.
Last edited:
In other words, you are saying that Japan is judged more harshly and on different standards for being non-Western, at least in many instances. I would agree with this, and expand that the mode of discourse on Japan is in some ways the opposite of the West. For instance, when it comes to stereotypes on Japan, the more extreme and outrageous a claim is, the more believable people find it, whereas for Western countries, the more extreme a claim is, the less credible it becomes. E.g. saying that Japan has an extreme culture of overwork and a highly toxic and suffocating shame-based society where everyone is repressed seems more credible to a lot of people than simply claiming that Japan is a "fairly normal developed country". Whereas if you were to discuss Canada, what constitutes as credible or not is the diametrical opposite.
Essentially yes. From what I have seen in general, the treatment of Japan in the discourse tends to be the same as that received by entities such as the Spanish Empire in the Anglosphere or villainous countries in fiction. Namely:
1) All decisions in Japan have as a driving factor the selfishness, stupidity or evil of the decision makers. Or all three at the same time. In all economic, cultural and social aspects.
2) Japan is an immensely racist country that hates the West in general, the United States in particular, and regrets having lost the Pacific War.
3) As a consequence of point 1, failure is the only option available to Japan.
4) Therefore, any attempt at reform will only result in an even faster and harder failure. This is sometimes excused with "arguments" such as "cultural stagnation," "social inflexibility," and other rhetoric that many Americans find highly offensive when applied to them.
(In the previous post I explained why for the purposes of this thread I use "the views of America" as a synonym for "the views of the West")
5) For reasons that are never made clear to us, and by methods that are never made clear to us, it is assumed that the Japanese government is blind and deaf to its problems, or is deliberately lying to hide those problems.
6) Nobody seems to care that these two premises ("Japan refuses to see the truth" vs "Japan lies to hide the truth") contradict each other. On the contrary, you are expected to believe that both are true.
7) As a consequence of points 1 and 2, the entire artistic and cultural production of Japan has as its sole objective
8) Promote the agenda of the Japanese extreme right.
9) Being part of the propaganda efforts described in point 7 to whiten the image of Japan for reasons never specified and with objectives never clarified.
10) No one will care how ridiculous point 9 is or that if there was a conspiracy of this size someone else would have noticed; if you reject the assumption that all Japanese art is propaganda, it will be assumed that it is because you have bought into that propaganda/sympathy with Japanese imperialism. The idea that you consider the whole concept stupid is simply not considered.
Last edited:
I can't see where you outlined your nine points, but I agree with most of what you said. Honestly, the discourse on Japan often resembles conspiracy theories, where Japan is regarded as a monolithic entity, a hivemind with a singular will, with no room for heterogeneity, where claims are made without any data. Claims about other developed countries that would be seen as "fake news" or "conspiracy theories" are received uncritically when it pertains to Japan. Again, the more outrageous a claim about Japan, the more believable people find it, the opposite of how things work with most other countries.
It seems that even though Japan is an ally of the West at the geopolitical level, its society is regarded as an enemy, probably to a larger extent than actual geopolitical enemies of the West like Russia, whose society and people are not othered to the same extent. There is something about Japanese society that many find utterly alien, bizarre, extreme, and threatening. It's a quite sad reality for Japan honestly, being stuck between a China that regards it as a political enemy, and a West that regards it as a societal enemy.
Last edited:
Oh yes, the "Anime and other Japanese pop culture are a deliberate conspiracy to 'rebrand' the country and make people forget about its atrocious war crimes" theory. As if you can't like the former and acknowledge the latter at the same time.
Last edited: