Again, thanks for your comments; I'm glad that my response provoked such a counter-response: a rarity in the blogosphere, so thank you very much! I can't help thinking that perhaps I may have offended you though: that certainly wasn't my case, as my response was simply a matter of causality.

Again, you make some very interesting points, and I believe that on the majority, we shall have to agree to disagree, otherwise we could get into a situation of which we will never hope to move on, however if I may take on a couple of the aspects, I will:

You refer back to your analogy about the car, and that it is distinctly a Western invention, therefore ultimately the East should reject it. Is that really the case? Are you saying that the East, i.e. Japan in this case, should reject all Western inventions simply on the basis that they were not made in the East? If that is the case, then there a great raft of examples that the East would never be privy to, and vice versa. How then would we ever be able to understand one another? The two halves of the planet cannot live in perfect isolationism, disregarded the actions of the other, that is not how this planet works. Sure, it worked for the most part of human history, but in a world such as that which we have now (which I am not saying is perfect, by any means) then how can that be expected to function?

A great many people have chosen to pick up the gauntlet and 'amend' the pathway of Japanese history, not just Fukuzawa. Of course, as you mention, it was at the bequest of the Shogunate that he ended up in America and then Europe in the first place, therefore an understanding of 'the other side' was always the intention of the Shogunate. Of course, it never expected those ideals to be used in the way that Fukuzawa intended them to be replace the Shogunate, as men with power seek only more power, therefore why would they seek to eradicate themselves? Unfortunately however, the Shogunate had come to stalemate: it could not regress, and it certainly could not continue. Even if Fukuzawa had not looked to advocate Western ideas, then somebody else would have been in his place, and if not that man, then another, and another and another. I know it sounds like an inevitability, but I do hold the view that the Shogunate, though great in the beginning (and I advocate many actions and philosophies of it, please do not misunderstand me on that regard) had had its day, and a new driving force had to be installed.

For all the innovations of which Japan is famous, it could not innovate in the domain of politics, and so acceptance of Westernisation was, for better or for worse, inevitable.

Furthermore, I do not believe that isolationism solves anything, regardless of whether America was isolationist was a great part of its history or not. America is far from perfect, and a completely different animal to Japan, so the comparison, for me, does not hold credence, though insightful all the same.

[me] And this is what I was alluding to, modernity is generally a Western term meaning ” if you are Westernized or embrace Western dogma, the rule of law, technology, and so on, then you are “modern.” But this term is used loosely. Modern notions of the term itself would mean advanced in industry and the sciences, all of which can be interpreted in different ways to mean different things. The concept of what's considered modern is flawed because it applies to how Westernized a country has become. A better word would be “advanced” since it denotes the development of a civilization regardless of institution. I don't see why Japan can't reject Western fundamentalism completely and yet still be considered an advanced civilization. Modernity has always been synonymous with terms like “equal rights” “democracy” and “capitalism” All of these things are not necessary for every nation and they are certainly not necessary for Japan. Democracy can't work for every nation and neither can capitalism, and most of all neither can Western fundamentalism. Ask the poor Afro-Caribbeans what they think about modernity and why they can't seem to make ends meet at the end of the month. How has their democracy disenfranchised them. Try asking them how Capitalism has benefited their wallets.]

[you] What further interests me is your supposition that the elements of your counter-arguement were in fact used to suppress women and those of non-Anglo lineage, or in the context of this arguement, non-Japanese people. Funny then, that Fukuzawa's work is notable in both the area of women's rights, and that of multi-national relations, firstly of Korea, and also of China; both powers and races in Asia with which, both you and I are acutely aware, Japan has not always stood on an equal ground. How wonderful then that Fukuzawa was able to see beyond that and reach out an arm in a most equilateral gesture.]

[me] Fukuzawa was an opportunist and didn't do much to enhance the nation. Yoshida Shoin would've been a better choice of notable Japanese greats. Modernity erodes societies and has for last half of the 20 and 21st Century. It's highly probable to assume that in a hundred years time the Japanese race will be absorbed into the greater Asian demographic much like the Afro/Latin American problem.]

[me] Also, you start your point by arguing that 'modernity' is in fact a euphemism for 'Westernisation', that they are one and the same, equals in partnership. However you then make a claim that as the West drive cars and therefore presume to be modern, the Japanese would be no less modern if they did not drive cars. Or to put this another way: you make a claim that as the West drive cars and therefore presume to be Westernised, the Japanese would be no less Westernised if they did not drive cars. As such, are you saying that the Japanese are Westernised or not, modern or not; I feel your points are most definitely at cross-purpose.]

[me] The term “modernity” should be thrown out completely. What's “now?” What are terms like “up-to-date” or words like “current” supposed to mean…? Advances in industry are a hallmark of Western nations, not Asian nations. But does being less industrial make Asians less modern? Again, the term modern only applies to Western nations and not Asian nations. If a Japanese person chooses to walk to work or ride a bicycle in order to protect the environment while shunning the automobile( invention of the West) then he is not less modern/civilized/advanced then his Western counter-part. And he is no less up-to-date either!

[ you] Your idea that Fukuzawa (whom you seem not to like to mention by name) was a potential poison to society as he tried to 'manufacture' a different type of society for Japan. Let us hypothesise then what would have happened had the 'Restoration' not gone ahead, and the Shogunate had continued to 'rule' Japan: the Shogunate's stranglehold on society would have increased, its ritualistic nature would have enveloped Japan and chastised it in a methodology that was both antiquated and irrelevant, not to mention the effect it would have had on economics of an already impoverished nation. I am not against the Shogunate per se, just what it meant for Japan's future.

[me] Japan's future has always been in Asia, but since that never came to fruition 60 years ago, because of past transgressions, then it was only logical for the nation to choose a path of aggressive industrialization. However, Fukuzawa took it too far. Not only did he want to Westernize quickly, but he wanted to incorporate Western values and ethics into an already harmonized society. Not even the Shogunate was entirely opposed to Western innovation. Even the great Tokugawa himself entertained foreign dignitaries and Western ideologies, and even Western warfare methods. He himself was a man well versed in Western ways, but yet felt that the country should not hurry to Westernize. Many of samurai followed a similar conviction, while others maintained a 100% exclusionary stance of ” no foreigners.”]

[you] Sure, you can now argue that Japan, after it was forced to embrace Western values at the end of the war, has found itself in exactly the same position as it was headed towards with the Shogunate, however I get the distinct feeling that Japan would now mean absolutely nothing to the world had it have maintained its course with the Shogunate, and therefore its opinions and its people would have been disregarded; this may not mean that much to some, but in an ever globalised society it means everything. At least now, Japan, much like Britain, has had its fifteen minutes of fame, and is now recognised for its successes and its advances in this world, rather than for nothing at all.

[me] What does Japan mean to the world? What opinions? Japan has always had a lack of both opinions and meanings according to the international community. If you are talking about innovations – not inventions – then “yes” I can see your point. Japan hasn't really produced anything for the world then and now is how I see it, so I feel the country is less better off now then it was during the shogunate's rule.]

[you] Blending philosophies, societies and cultures scares many people because the human condition does not take kindly to change, and sees it as an eradication of a nation's independence. Let me state then, that it was this exact independence that was isolating Japan further and yet further from the rest of the world, and it was through conduits such as Fukuzawa, that nations such as Japan have become some of the biggest driving forces of the 'modern age', whatever you believe that to be.

[me] Britain and the U.S. were both isolationist nations. The United States of America has probably been around for a little over 200 years and yet had managed to be not only the bulwark of isolationism, but perhaps the only nation in the world whose foreign policy was defined by isolationism for over a quarter century even according to today’s standards.. People like Thomas Paine, Anglo-American political philosopher, was a staunch advocate of isolationism whose efforts saw through both the American Revolution (1775-1783) and the French Revolution(1789-1799). According to Goerge Washington in his Farewell Address he said: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” How effective were such exclusionary policies will depend largely on whether or not these policies benefited the respective countries in terms of racial harmony and or economic hegemony. – only time will tell or maybe time has already told us, or on us.

If we were to fast forward a bit after George Washington, let’s say 1945, American senator Robert Rice, who was an unabashed isolationist and Anglophobe, whose foreign policy position alienated him from Delano Roosevelt, advocated strict limits on immigration, by 90%, and the registration of all aliens because he feared that loose immigration laws would threaten the security of the job market in the U.S.

American politician Pat Buchanan who was runner up in the 2000 presidential election was another infamous modern day isolationist who advocated policies such as “America First” which would’ve lifted trade barriers while using the federal government to protect American jobs and other interest.

“In great cities men are brought together by the desire of gain. They are not in a state of co-operation, but of isolation, as to the making of fortunes; and for all the rest they are careless of neighbors. Christianity teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves; modern society acknowledges no neighbor [Benjamin Disraeli former Prime Minister of England].