In the previous section I stated that all men, whether rich or poor, strong or weak, members of the government or citizens of the government, have the same inherent human rights (kengi).* Here I want to broaden its meaning to discuss the relations between nations as well. Since a nation is a society of people, Japan is a society of the Japanese, England of the English. Japanese and English both live between the same heaven and the same earth. Therefore there is no reason why they should infringe upon each other’s rights. If there is no reason for one man to harm another, there is equally no reason for two men to harm two others. The same principle applies for one million or ten million; the truth of things does not change according to the number of persons involved.
Now in surveying the present world scene, we find that there are strong and wealthy nations which may be called civilized and enlightened and in which learning and the arts of war are highly developed. There are also poor and weak nations which are barbarous or savage and in which culture and military capacities are still low.† In general, the nations of Europe and America illustrate the first category, those of Asia and Africa the second. Nevertheless, the wealth and strength of nations are outward appearances, and it is natural that they are all different. But if the strong and wealthy powers oppress the poor and weak nations, it would be no different from the sumo wrestler in my previous example who could break the arm of a sick person. By reason of the inherent rights of nations, this cannot be allowed. Modern-day Japan as well cannot compare in wealth and strength with the nations of the West; but by reason of the inherent rights of nations, Japan is not the least inferior. If the day comes when Japan suffers injustice from without, we should not fear to take on the whole world as our enemy.
As I have said above in the first section, this is the case in which every Japanese citizen, to the last man, should be willing to sacrifice his life to prevent the decline of the prestige and glory of Japan. Moreover, the outward circumstances of national wealth and power are not irrevocably fixed by nature’s decree. They can be changed by the diligent efforts of men. Today’s fools can become tomorrow’s sages. The rich and mighty of the past can become the poor and weak today. There are not a few examples of this in both ancient and modern times. If we Japanese begin to pursue learning with spirit and energy, so as to achieve personal independence and thereby enrich and strengthen the nation, why should we fear the Powers of the West? Let us associate with men of truth, and be rid of those who are not. In a nutshell, national independence must follow from personal independence.
As I have just said, all nations are equal; but when the people of a nation do not have the spirit of individual independence, the corresponding right of national independence cannot be realized. There are three reasons for this, which I shall develop below.
I per sons without the spirit of personal independence will not have deep concern for their country.
Independence means to manage one’s own personal affairs and not to have a mind to depend upon others. The person who can himself discern the right and wrong of things, and who does not err in the measures he takes, is independent of the wisdom of others. The person who makes his own livelihood through his own physical or mental labors is independent of the financial support of others. If people do not have these independent qualities of mind and are merely reliant on the power of others, the entire nation will be dependents and there will be no one to support them. It will be like a procession of blind men without a guide. Would this not be absurd? Some may say that “the people should be kept in a state of dependence and left uninformed” [Analects]; or that for every thousand blind men there are equally a thousand with sight. Thus, they say, let the wise control the masses from above; let the masses obey the will of their superiors from below. This argument is in fact from the school of Confucius. But it is a great error in actual fact. And in fact there is only one in a thousand who possesses sufficient talent and virtue to be able to govern others in the nation.
Let us suppose that there is a country of a million citizens, of which a thousand are wise, and the more than 999,000 are ignorant. Suppose that the great majority could be controlled by the talent and virtue of the wise minority, who would love them as children or tend them as sheep. They could, by both kind and severe measures, show them the direction the government is to take. The result might be that the masses would unconsciously obey the orders of their superiors. There would be no incidents of robbery and murder, and there would be peace and good government throughout the land. But essentially this is not the case. This hypothetical nation’s people are divided into masters and guests. The masters are the one thousand intelligent persons who direct the affairs of the state. The rest are ignorant guests. Being only guests, they have few real concerns. They rely entirely on their masters without taking any initiative themselves. Therefore their solicitude for their country will not be as great as their masters’. Their attitude will indeed be like that of strangers. As long as we are talking about the internal affairs of the nation, they may be bypassed. But if war should break out with a foreign country, the absurdity of this arrangement will become clear. The ignorant and powerless masses may not betray their country, but there will be many who will desert the cause, saying that “since we are only guests, sacrificing our lives is uncalled for.” Thus the population of the country is nominally a million strong, but when it comes to defending the nation is considerably less in actual count. It would be quite impossible for such a nation to maintain its independence.
As I have said above, Japan must be filled with the spirit of independence if we are to defend her against foreign threats. Every citizen must take the responsibility of the nation upon himself, regardless of personal status or prestige. Both the learned and the ignorant, the blind and those who have sight, must fulfill their obligations as citizens of the country. Englishmen should consider England to be their native soil; we Japanese should consider Japan to be ours. Since it is ours, we should treat our own native soil as our own homes. We should not hesitate to lose not only our fortunes but even our lives for the sake of our homeland. This is precisely the great duty of patriotism. Of course, the administration is the government, and those who are politically subordinate are the people. But this is only a division of roles for the sake of efficiency. When the honor of the whole nation is at stake, is it right for the duty of the citizens to be that of passive bystanders who delegate the affairs of state entirely to the government? Because the name of a country is used in the title of a person’s name, as Mr. So-and-so of England, or Mr. So-and-so of Japan, each person has the right to pursue his daily life in freedom within that country. Once he has this right, he has its duties as well.
In the Sengoku Period [1467–1568], when Imagawa Yoshimoto of Suruga led an army of several tens of thousands against Oda Nobunaga, he was ambushed by Nobunaga at Okehazama.† Nobunaga then routed Yoshimoto’s headquarters and beheaded him. The army of Suruga scattered like frightened spiders. They fled without a clash of arms. The then prestigious government of Imagawa of Suruga collapsed in a day and disappeared forever. Two or three years ago, the French emperor Napoleon III was captured by Prussia at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war. But the French not only did not abandon hope, they fought back with even greater spirits. They fought with their very blood and guts. After holding firm for several months, a treaty was finally signed, and France had survived. Her fate was entirely different from that of Imagawa. What is the reason for this difference? It is because the people of Suruga were entirely dependent upon Yoshimoto alone. Their status was that of guests who did not regard Suruga as their own native province. In France there were many patriotic citizens, each of whom took the responsibility of the nation’s crisis upon himself and fought for his own land without needing to be persuaded by others. This made the difference between ancient Suruga and modern France. Judging from this case, we can infer how, in a crisis calling for national defense, those who have the spirit of independence will exhibit deep concern for their country, in contrast to those who have not.
II t hose without the spirit of independence within themselves will also be unable to exercise their right of independence when in contact with foreigners outside.
Those who lack the spirit of independence necessarily rely on others. Those who rely on others fear them. Standing in fear of others, they must fawn upon them. Their fear and subordination gradually become habitual; they come to wear faces of brass. They know no shame, and do not speak out on questions which call for discussion. In confrontation with others, they only know how to bow to the waist. When this becomes habitual nature, it is not easily changed. For example, family names and horse riding have now been permitted the common people, and the law courts have modernized their ways. Therefore the official status of the commoners is equal to that of the ex-samurai families. Yet their old habits are not changing with equal rapidity. Their basic nature as commoners remains the same as in the days of old. Their speech and dealings with others are still those of inferiors. They cannot utter a single coherent phrase before superiors. When told to stand, they stand; when told to dance, they dance. Their subservience is like that of hungry dogs raised in a house. They truly are spiritless and powerless with faces of brass.
In the ancient period of national seclusion under the rigid administration of the Tokugawa shogunate, the people were already spiritless. Not only did this not interfere with government practices, it was in fact advantageous. The shogunate purposely perpetuated their ignorance and subservience—indeed, the officials took pride in doing so. But now that Japan has formal relations with foreign nations, the lingering harm from such a policy is evident. For example, if a merchant from a rural area plucks up enough courage to dare to engage in trade with the foreigners at Yokohama, he will first be frightened at their physical size, then at the amounts of their money, the size of their trading houses, the speed of their steamships. He may utterly lose heart. If in the course of time he comes forward to do business with them, he will be boggled by their business techniques. When the foreigners press some unreasonable negotiation, he will not only be dazzled, but will shudder at their power and prestige. While he knows that their demands are unreasonable, he will end up taking huge losses as well as suffering great personal humiliation.
However, this will be the loss not only of that person, but of the entire nation; it will be the humiliation not only of a single individual, but also of Japan. This absurd spirit of the townsmen is the result of the fact that they have, for generation after generation, not tasted the spirit of independence. They have suffered under the samurai and been abused by the law courts. Even when they met with an ashigaru [footsoldier] who earned a minimum kind of feudal stipend, the townsmen had to look up to him as a superior. This subservient spirit permeated the very marrow of their bones; it could not be washed away overnight. Thus it is not unreasonable that such cowardly people should lose heart before the bold and intrepid foreigners. And their conduct demonstrates my contention that those who lack personal independence cannot stand up independently before foreigners.
III those who lack the spirit of independence rely on the power of others and sometimes perpetrate evil deeds.
In the time of the Tokugawa shogunate there were some persons who used the name of prestigious daimyo such as the Sanke† to lend money with which they engaged in very unjust transactions. Their manipulations were extremely detestable. If someone was not paid back borrowed money, he should have spared no efforts in making repeated appeals to the courts. But if he dared not appeal out of fear of the government, was it not even more cowardly for him to demand his money back by threatening with the name and power of others? We no longer hear of such incidents, but are there not some who are now availing themselves of the prestige of foreigners? I do not yet have clear evidence of this, and so I cannot state it positively. But considering past practices, I am not without my suspicions about such dealings in present-day society as well. Hereafter, if there is any case of mixed residence with foreigners in which someone uses their reputation to do evil, it will indeed be an indescribable curse upon the nation. Therefore let us not relax our vigilance, saying that it is easy to deal with people who have no spirit of independence. Calamity can arise from unexpected quarters. The weaker the spirit of independence in the people, the stronger will be the danger of the nation being betrayed. This is precisely an instance of perpetrating evil by relying on others, of which I spoke above.
I have enumerated above three instances of misfortune to the nation caused by the absence of the spirit of independence in the people. If there are persons who have the spirit of patriotism to any degree, they must now plan to cultivate their own personal independence, without regard to whether they belong to the public or private sectors of society. If they have enough strength, they must also assist others to achieve their own independence. Parents and elder brothers should foster it in their children and younger brothers; teachers should encourage it in their pupils. No matter what social origins, every man must stand up independently and protect Japan. In short, a common liberation of man and a common share of the nation’s joys and sorrows will be better than the initiative of the few who bind the majority to their will and bear the burdens of government alone.
