5 ms·

One interesting factoid that the new york times did not mention is that while it was common for emperors to resign before the meiji restoration, a lot of those

by hristov 10y ago

One interesting factoid that the new york times did not mention is that while it was common for emperors to resign before the meiji restoration, a lot of those resignations probably were not voluntary. The Japanese emperors are the longest reigning royal dynasty in the world, having reigned for the entire known history of the nation. But perhaps heir secret is that they did not have much power most of the time. During the time of the shoguns and even before that it was common to force an emperor to resign before he reaches adulthood so as to ensure that there was a child emperor on the throne at all times. A child emperor of course is unlikely to use his position to seize power. The Meiji restoration was a revolution whose stated goal was to restore the power to the emperor. Perhaps it was in view of that goal and the history of forced resignatons that they made a law that did not even give the emperor the option to resign. However, I am not certain whether the present emperor for life law dates back to the meiji restoration. Or perhaps they put the law in after WW2 to ensure that foreign governments do not mess with the emperors.

twblalock 10y ago
The modern imperial household law was introduced in the late 19th century, in order to emulate similar laws in Europe. It was amended after WWII, but law regarding abdication/resignation was left unchanged.
anabis 10y ago
There are also examples of retired Emperors (上皇, 法皇) wielding power. That is part of the reason why they now reign for life.
timje1 10y ago
Quick FYI - factoid: a false fact that is repeated often enough to become accepted as true.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  Your little factoid is an example of the definition of factoid you're describing. But there are other definitions of factoid and I suspect the most common one is along the lines "small tidbit of information".
  - cheiVia0 10y ago
    Actually, that's the factoid. According to Wikipedia [1]: > The term was coined originally in 1973 as a neologism by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it’s not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." Since its creation in 1973 the term has evolved from its original meaning, in common usage, and has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information. So it is a factoid that "factoid" means something that is true. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      Perhaps we should disambiguate the two: factoid, brief fact. Infactoid, brief seemingly true fact that is not due to repeated use. It's not literally as bad as the figuritive misuse of literally, where literally has come to mean figuratively and literally... This one I fight all day long.
      - sbmassey 10y ago
        Well it is just a fairly recently invented word, sure, but it is rather telling that it was apparently CNN that jumped on the word and used it to mean 'trivial fact'
        bluejekyll 10y ago
        Well, it was a reporter inside CNN, just a person like us, who through repeatedly hearing factoid assumed that it meant what it sounds like. Ironically, maybe this was the intention of the way this word was derived. It seems like it should mean a brief/small fact, but in fact it means an untrue fact, therefore serving as a perfectly recursive example of itself.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Well, it was a reporter inside CNN, just a person like us, who through repeatedly hearing factoid assumed that it meant what it sounds like. "Factoid" does mean what it sounds like (that is, it is a simple application of the common suffix "-oid" to the root "fact", both in their usual senses.) The use CNN latched on to is not what it sounds like.
sangnoir 10y ago
> One interesting factoid that the new york times did not mention is that while it was common for emperors to resign before the meiji restoration It's right there in the article, you might have missed it (or it was added after you read it): “Historically, it was extremely common for emperors to abdicate,” said Takeshi Hara, an authority on the imperial family at the Open University of Japan. More than half of Japan’s monarchs have vacated the throne, often for quiet retirement at Buddhist monasteries. Only in the 19th century, when Japan’s leaders created the cult of emperor worship, did quitting become impossible.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Selectively quoting an accurate sentence so you can pretend it's inaccurate is not a good way to do things. Take a look at the "while" in the portion you've quoted.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > Selectively quoting an accurate sentence so you can pretend it's inaccurate is not a good way to do things. That wasn't my intention,and I apologize to parent (hristov). I misread/parsed parent's comment wrong: my eyes somehow skipped over the 'while' which left the sentence structure valid but with the opposite meaning: "One interesting factoid that the new york times did not mention is that it was common for emperors to resign before the meiji restoration, a lot of those resignations probably were not voluntary." The reason I removed the rest of the sentence was because it seemed tangential to the primary subject. I can no longer edit my original comment so this one will serve as my addendum.
gwern 10y ago
On the other hand, many of those 'retired' or 'cloistered' emperors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daij%C5%8D_Tenn%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daij%C5%8D_Tenn%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloistered_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloistered_rule ) resigned precisely so they could wield power and influence, without the endless restrictions of ceremony and precedent that preoccupied a reigning emperor. Those interested in Japanese poetry will immediately think of Retired Emperor Go-Toba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Go-Toba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Go-Toba) and his influence on arts & culture before his more ill-fated political adventurism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dky%C5%AB_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dky%C5%AB_War). The emperor-ship was not a particularly powerful position dating long before the shoguns, but the retired emperor was in a much better position to do things.

by hristov 10y ago

twblalock 10y ago

The modern imperial household law was introduced in the late 19th century, in order to emulate similar laws in Europe. It was amended after WWII, but law regarding abdication/resignation was left unchanged.

anabis 10y ago

There are also examples of retired Emperors (上皇, 法皇) wielding power. That is part of the reason why they now reign for life.

timje1 10y ago

Quick FYI - factoid: a false fact that is repeated often enough to become accepted as true.

cgriswald 10y ago
Your little factoid is an example of the definition of factoid you're describing. But there are other definitions of factoid and I suspect the most common one is along the lines "small tidbit of information".
- cheiVia0 10y ago
  Actually, that's the factoid. According to Wikipedia [1]: > The term was coined originally in 1973 as a neologism by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it’s not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." Since its creation in 1973 the term has evolved from its original meaning, in common usage, and has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information. So it is a factoid that "factoid" means something that is true. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    Perhaps we should disambiguate the two: factoid, brief fact. Infactoid, brief seemingly true fact that is not due to repeated use. It's not literally as bad as the figuritive misuse of literally, where literally has come to mean figuratively and literally... This one I fight all day long.
    - sbmassey 10y ago
      Well it is just a fairly recently invented word, sure, but it is rather telling that it was apparently CNN that jumped on the word and used it to mean 'trivial fact'
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        Well, it was a reporter inside CNN, just a person like us, who through repeatedly hearing factoid assumed that it meant what it sounds like. Ironically, maybe this was the intention of the way this word was derived. It seems like it should mean a brief/small fact, but in fact it means an untrue fact, therefore serving as a perfectly recursive example of itself.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Well, it was a reporter inside CNN, just a person like us, who through repeatedly hearing factoid assumed that it meant what it sounds like. "Factoid" does mean what it sounds like (that is, it is a simple application of the common suffix "-oid" to the root "fact", both in their usual senses.) The use CNN latched on to is not what it sounds like.

sangnoir 10y ago

> One interesting factoid that the new york times did not mention is that while it was common for emperors to resign before the meiji restoration It's right there in the article, you might have missed it (or it was added after you read it): “Historically, it was extremely common for emperors to abdicate,” said Takeshi Hara, an authority on the imperial family at the Open University of Japan. More than half of Japan’s monarchs have vacated the throne, often for quiet retirement at Buddhist monasteries. Only in the 19th century, when Japan’s leaders created the cult of emperor worship, did quitting become impossible.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Selectively quoting an accurate sentence so you can pretend it's inaccurate is not a good way to do things. Take a look at the "while" in the portion you've quoted.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > Selectively quoting an accurate sentence so you can pretend it's inaccurate is not a good way to do things. That wasn't my intention,and I apologize to parent (hristov). I misread/parsed parent's comment wrong: my eyes somehow skipped over the 'while' which left the sentence structure valid but with the opposite meaning: "One interesting factoid that the new york times did not mention is that it was common for emperors to resign before the meiji restoration, a lot of those resignations probably were not voluntary." The reason I removed the rest of the sentence was because it seemed tangential to the primary subject. I can no longer edit my original comment so this one will serve as my addendum.

gwern 10y ago

On the other hand, many of those 'retired' or 'cloistered' emperors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daij%C5%8D_Tenn%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daij%C5%8D_Tenn%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloistered_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloistered_rule ) resigned precisely so they could wield power and influence, without the endless restrictions of ceremony and precedent that preoccupied a reigning emperor. Those interested in Japanese poetry will immediately think of Retired Emperor Go-Toba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Go-Toba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Go-Toba) and his influence on arts & culture before his more ill-fated political adventurism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dky%C5%AB_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dky%C5%AB_War). The emperor-ship was not a particularly powerful position dating long before the shoguns, but the retired emperor was in a much better position to do things.