Speaking of corporate wokeism (huh, my spell check ain't woke), I just tuned in to Netflix's new docudrama series Age of the Samurai. If you've seen the show, you'll have recognized the format; narrated reenactments of significant or representative historical events, interspersed with commentary by experts in 16th century Japanese history.
I myself do not aspire to wokeness, however I am tuned to recognize and understand non sequiturs. In this case, I wonder why we see the history of 16th century Japan told almost exclusively by white American and English men.
In the hour long first episode, eleven white, native English speaking academics, writers and historians divide 69 appearances interspersed between action scenes. Whether these represent a particularly distinguished collection of Japanese scholars, I cannot say, although I don't regard that as the main question.
Keio University Prof. Kazuhiro Marushima and UC Berkeley visiting Prof. Tomoko Kitagawa were the two other commentators. Of the 71 commentaries spaced out between dramatic scenes, each made a single, brief appearance. Should they have played more prominent roles? I think so, but again not the main question.
Is is necessary, or even a good idea that white people dominate the historical commentary of a highly visible media event involving 16th century Japan? I doubt Netflix knew or cared that they had, although you can bet the question would have been addressed had the story, for example, been about the history of the Zulu kingdom during the 19th century. In that case I would side with those who would point out that there are many highly qualified African scholars to comment about African history, just as there are many, many Japanese authorities on 16th century Japanese history.
The Age of the Samurai confirms that corporate wokeness is both selective and in accord with mass appeal, rather than a demonstration of independent reasoning or enlightenment. It also points to the disparate treatment of and sensitivity to Asian Americans, who receive very little consideration as people of color in America.
Speaking of corporate wokeism (huh, my spell check ain't woke), I just tuned in to Netflix's new docudrama series Age of the Samurai. If you've seen the show, you'll have recognized the format; narrated reenactments of significant or representative historical events, interspersed with commentary by experts in 16th century Japanese history.
I myself do not aspire to wokeness, however I am tuned to recognize and understand non sequiturs. In this case, I wonder why we see the history of 16th century Japan told almost exclusively by white American and English men.
In the hour long first episode, eleven white, native English speaking academics, writers and historians divide 69 appearances interspersed between action scenes. Whether these represent a particularly distinguished collection of Japanese scholars, I cannot say, although I don't regard that as the main question.
Keio University Prof. Kazuhiro Marushima and UC Berkeley visiting Prof. Tomoko Kitagawa were the two other commentators. Of the 71 commentaries spaced out between dramatic scenes, each made a single, brief appearance. Should they have played more prominent roles? I think so, but again not the main question.
Is is necessary, or even a good idea that white people dominate the historical commentary of a highly visible media event involving 16th century Japan? I doubt Netflix knew or cared that they had, although you can bet the question would have been addressed had the story, for example, been about the history of the Zulu kingdom during the 19th century. In that case I would side with those who would point out that there are many highly qualified African scholars to comment about African history, just as there are many, many Japanese authorities on 16th century Japanese history.
The Age of the Samurai confirms that corporate wokeness is both selective and in accord with mass appeal, rather than a demonstration of independent reasoning or enlightenment. It also points to the disparate treatment of and sensitivity to Asian Americans, who receive very little consideration as people of color in America.