Bullshito
June 4th, 2006 | by Chris Gidman |
My first pass through Bushido by Inazo Nitobe has not been encouraging. Nitobe is said to be a Christian apologist. I’m afraid that his apologetic methods have been applied to Bushido. That is, the book seems to be less of a description of the code and more of an analysis of it. At times he appears to make excuses for it. Other times he seems to praise it. Still other times he seems to condemn it. I’m fairly confused by the whole thing.
I will admit to missing the point a few times because I simply do not know the definition of a good 30 or 40 words used in the text. I was occasionally thrown off by his odd turns of phrase and long sentences. He also has horrible habit of adding annoying alliterations. It’s very distracting. That is why I need to make a second pass.
From my earlier post, you will note that Bushido is no more a religion than European Chivalry was. This idea comes straight from the earlier part of the book. Towards the end, however, he notes that when religion is defined as morality touched by emotion, Bushido is best suited to fit that definition. This kind of double-speak really turned me off. So, is it a religion? I don’t think he adequately answers the question.
He asserts that Bushido died with Japanese feudalism in 1870. However, he says it was not democracy that killed it. Essentially he says it committed seppuku. Like a flower that dies when its season is done, it simply stepped out of the way. Yet, from the ashes of its death, it will rise again like the Phoenix. It will take on a new form, but it will still be Bushido.
WTF?
In many ways, the book laments the death of the gentleman. With this, I agree. In coming to worship our own rights and our own individuality, we have lost respect for the rights and individuality of others. Upon meeting a stranger caught in a rain without protection, we think, the idiot forgot his umbrella. We forget that he is suffering. In the interest of self-expression, we have lost decorum. In the interest of economy, we have lost elegance.
My understanding is that this code is not everything I thought it was or hoped it would be. In fact, some parts of it are downright silly. But, there are parts of it that really strike me as having that kernel of idealism that nags at me. One of the few quotes that stood out was this:
“If there is anything to do, there is certainly a best way to do it, and best way is both the most economical and the most graceful.”
Having focused on only one half of the equation, we have lost site of the other. It is in hope of gaining further insight on this other half that I will make a second pass through the book. This time, I will more dutifully learn the vocabulary of the book and perhaps also its context.
A hallway underground;
Pipes journey together yet
end alone, empty.
