3 ms·
Your comment assumes that the Japan Times coverage is exceptional but I didn't find the Yomiuri Shimbun's very different and the ideas you object to and want to
by Steko 10y ago
Your comment assumes that the Japan Times coverage is exceptional but I didn't find the Yomiuri Shimbun's very different and the ideas you object to and want to attribute to the Japan Times slant seem to be consistent with direct quotes from the researcher.
> nobody ever doubted that Japan in the Nara time frame had foreigners living in Japan
Actual claim is: "this is the first time a person as far away as Persia was known to have worked in Japan" Seem like an important difference.
> Just look at the Wikipedia page for the Nara period... Anyone who has ever been to Nara
I'm guessing Akihiro Watanabe of the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties has both been to Nara and is as familiar with the place as the average reader of the English wiki article. He apparently holds these views you ridicule as nothing so much as Japan Times editorializing.
> The fact that there was a Persian living in Japan at the time is interesting, but hardly mind blowing.
The idea that the article claims it's "mind blowing" seems like a straw man.
> So why on earth would you publish this article?
Probably because the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties had a press release and it seemed like an interesting item. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
- mikekchar 10y agoFirst, the Yomiuri Shimbun's coverage is the Japan Times's coverage. Look at the by line -- "Japan Times/ANN". And, I'm sure it's an important discovery. I'm not so sure it is being reported well. That's my point.
- Steko 10y agoI'm talking about actual Japanese coverage[1] which includes stuff like "古代の日本が予想よりも国際色豊かだった可能性" ('It appears Ancient Japan was more international than expected') not strikingly that different from the Japan Times headline. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%B8%A1%E8%BE%BA+%E6%99%83%E5%AE%8F&safe=active&biw=1278&bih=958&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A10%2F4%2F2016%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F20%2F2016&tbm=#safe=active&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:10%2F4%2F2016%2Ccd_max:10%2F20%2F2016&q=%22%E6%B8%A1%E8%BE%BA+%E6%99%83%E5%AE%8F%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%B8%A1%E8%BE%BA+%E6%99%83...
- mikekchar 10y agoMy google results do no match yours. Mainichi has a story and does not include that quote (or any other). Nikkei as well. There is a Youtube video of the story which describes it, but includes no quotes. It mentions that there is an exhibition where you can go and see the artefacts. I could not find the story in the Japanese version of the Yomiuri newspaper from google, but I found another site that linked to it. When I followed the link, it was dead. The focus of the articles I've read seems to be that this is the oldest written evidence of Persians coming to Japan, which I agree is very interesting.
- nihonde 10y agoYou're probably both right. Japan Times is known for two things: rehashing other news and publishing original content that has all the pernicious and perverse qualities mentioned above. In the end, Japan Times is a blemish on journalism and has no meaningful connection to real life in Japan. It seems to appeal to a certain demographic of extremely angry and bitter gaijin expats who failed to find a place in Japan. As for rehashing other news, that's probably just how they keep the lights on.