# Legal rights of the Samurai?



## CNida (Dec 24, 2014)

I was doing some reading late at night the other night, and I idly passed over some bits about the Samurai.

One part that I had read that both surprised and interested me (for reasons I can't fathom), was that if someone were to act offensively in front of a Samurai, the Samurai could take the mans life if he chose to without needing to wait for the authorities or involve them whatsoever.

I am hoping someone could clarify on this for me, mostly as a means to sate my curiosity. 

When this happened, did it happen in the form of a duel? Like, "You have offended my armor, now grab this weapon so we may fight to the death."? Or was it more direct, like, "You spoke a foul word, so taste my blade."...?

Or was it more of an authority thing, where Samurai were authorized to act as police/judge/executioner, right then and there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## donald1 (Dec 24, 2014)

ive heard if someone were to touch their sword they would have the right to kill them


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 24, 2014)

donald1 said:


> ive heard if someone were to touch their sword they would have the right to kill them




That could be a double entendre though....


----------



## K-man (Dec 24, 2014)

There is a little bit here ...

Kiri-sute gomen - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 24, 2014)

One thing you have to be careful with on a question like this is the era...  The samurai spanned a long era, and their rights and what qualified as "samurai" varied at different points.  Rather than go further and put my foot in my mouth, I'll leave it for some with much better knowledge of the subject to address -- but I think that the answer is going to be, in part, "it depends on when..."

Think about the difference in what being a "knight" meant at various points throughout European history...


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2014)

CNida said:


> I was doing some reading late at night the other night, and I idly passed over some bits about the Samurai.



Cool.



CNida said:


> One part that I had read that both surprised and interested me (for reasons I can't fathom), was that if someone were to act offensively in front of a Samurai, the Samurai could take the mans life if he chose to without needing to wait for the authorities or involve them whatsoever.



Hmm… it wasn't exactly like that… 



CNida said:


> I am hoping someone could clarify on this for me, mostly as a means to sate my curiosity.



Sure.



CNida said:


> When this happened, did it happen in the form of a duel? Like, "You have offended my armor, now grab this weapon so we may fight to the death."? Or was it more direct, like, "You spoke a foul word, so taste my blade."…?



No, not really either of those, although it was closer to the second… 



CNida said:


> Or was it more of an authority thing, where Samurai were authorized to act as police/judge/executioner, right then and there?



Not so much an 'authority' thing, no… it's not such an easy topic to discuss, as there is simply too much to cover… we're talking about around 1,000 years of history here, with a huge range of social structures and norms involved, giving differentiations from one geographical (political) area to another, let alone the range of time periods we're discussing.

But, to give some kind of overview, K-man has already linked to an article on a practice known as kiritsute gomen… there was also the practice of tsujikiri… both of which involved the practice of samurai striking non-samurai… but in none of those cases were the samurai acting as "judge, jury, and executioner"… they were really simply exercising their (then) given rights. But the thing to remember is that those "rights" weren't necessarily universal… nor were they necessarily as arbitrary as you might think. There was a lot that might go into the execution of such rights/actions… and the repercussions could be quite extreme… both if the right was exercised, or if it wasn't (but "should" have been).

It gets rather technical, but if you want something cleared up, just ask.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2014)

I don't think it would have been in the Samurai's interest to bump off too many of the 'lesser' mortals. Servants and workers would have been hard to come back if they could get executed so readily!
I wonder if they had the same 'droit de seigneur' that certain lords etc had in Europe!
it's always interesting that often the 'known' facts about people and events in history is rarely the truth or is only part of the truth, we all think we know for certain about things but we don't. King Canute for example is cited as the idiot who tried to hold back the waves but the actual truth was he was demonstrating to his nobles that he couldn't do everything they wanted as it was out of his hands, by contemporary accounts they were suitably chastened but that's not how history now tells it. I imagine the 'history' we think we know about Samurai is much the same.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I don't think it would have been in the Samurai's interest to bump off too many of the 'lesser' mortals. Servants and workers would have been hard to come back if they could get executed so readily!



Actually, not really a factor or consideration at all… the samurai didn't really have such "servants" taken from the lower classes at all… in fact, the origin of the term "samurai" is the verb "sabaru", or "to serve"… the samurai were the servants, in that sense… there wasn't such a situation as the serfs in Europe… most of the attendants were simply lower ranked samurai themselves.



Tez3 said:


> I wonder if they had the same 'droit de seigneur' that certain lords etc had in Europe!



Well, leaving off the fact that that "right" has no actual evidence to support it existing in Europe, no, such things weren't really a thing in Japan either.



Tez3 said:


> it's always interesting that often the 'known' facts about people and events in history is rarely the truth or is only part of the truth, we all think we know for certain about things but we don't. King Canute for example is cited as the idiot who tried to hold back the waves but the actual truth was he was demonstrating to his nobles that he couldn't do everything they wanted as it was out of his hands, by contemporary accounts they were suitably chastened but that's not how history now tells it. I imagine the 'history' we think we know about Samurai is much the same.



Actually, that's the way I've always heard the King Canute story (that he was demonstrating to his nobles that his power had limits, as they were trying to deify him)… I've never come across it as an example of his lack of self awareness…


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2014)

The King Cnut, to give him his real name, story is often told as one of a man trying a futile and pointless task. The servants comment I'm afraid was a bit facetious, I had a sort of Monty Python moment of seeing the Samurai bumping off anyone that upset them and having nobody left.


----------



## K-man (Dec 25, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I don't think it would have been in the Samurai's interest to bump off too many of the 'lesser' mortals. Servants and workers would have been hard to come back if they could get executed so readily!


I think, certainly at certain times, that Samurai had the right to kill anyone who insulted them. However they had to justify their actions which is why they made sure there was a witness to their action.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> The King Cnut, to give him his real name, story is often told as one of a man trying a futile and pointless task.



Cool. I've never come across it presented that way… always as a parable extolling that you should be aware of your limits. I get the other take, though.



Tez3 said:


> The servants comment I'm afraid was a bit facetious, I had a sort of Monty Python moment of seeing the Samurai bumping off anyone that upset them and having nobody left.



Ha… yeah, not so much… 



K-man said:


> I think, certainly at certain times, that Samurai had the right to kill anyone who insulted them. However they had to justify their actions which is why they made sure there was a witness to their action.



Not entirely… well, not anyone… there were rules about who, how, when, why etc… and, of course, the witness could have a damaging side to them as well… if you (as a samurai) were witnessed ignoring an insult, that could be as damaging to you as acting when you didn't need to… and the witness could potentially be a witness to either.


----------



## CNida (Dec 25, 2014)

Tsujikiri sounds horrid.

That it was even legal makes me wonder. I had always thought that the samurai were an honor-bound people.

To try out your new blade or cutting technique on a defenseless passerby? Sounds despicable. Haha.

I'm sure there's more to it than what I could read on Wikipedia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 25, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> The King Cnut, to give him his real name, story is often told as one of a man trying a futile and pointless task. The servants comment I'm afraid was a bit facetious, I had a sort of Monty Python moment of seeing the Samurai bumping off anyone that upset them and having nobody left.


I've honestly seen it presented both ways in different places.  That's one of the things about parables; they can often say more than one thing, depending on how you want to present them.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> I've honestly seen it presented both ways in different places.  That's one of the things about parables; they can often say more than one thing, depending on how you want to present them.




True, it's a shame either way though because Cnut was one of the best kings England ever had. It all gets over looked because of the 'holding back the waves' story, that's all most people know about him and in reality it was one miniscule part of his reign.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2014)

CNida said:


> That it was even legal makes me wonder. I had always thought that the samurai were an honor-bound people.



They were...but 'honor' is always culturally defined.  Where I grew up, kicking during a fight was considered a foul, like biting.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 27, 2014)

CNida said:


> Tsujikiri sounds horrid.



Well… yeah.



CNida said:


> That it was even legal makes me wonder. I had always thought that the samurai were an honor-bound people.



Hmm… no, it wasn't legal… it was a capitol offence, actually. I'll deal with the "honour" thing in a bit… 



CNida said:


> To try out your new blade or cutting technique on a defenseless passerby? Sounds despicable. Haha.



Sure… from the perspective of a modern, Western sensibility, absolutely… from the perspective of a samurai, particularly one who was living in an era of peace (the Edo period, where much of the practice occurred), and was told constantly that his role was as a warrior, to cut down the enemy, and that he wasn't truly who he purported to be until he had cut someone down, it's a different context and ideal… 



CNida said:


> I'm sure there's more to it than what I could read on Wikipedia.



Ha, yeah… 



arnisador said:


> They were...but 'honor' is always culturally defined.  Where I grew up, kicking during a fight was considered a foul, like biting.



Yep, this is a big part of it. 

CNida, remember when I said that the witness could have a damaging side to them as well? You have to remember that the idea of "honour" as a samurai was intrinsically linked to the idea of what a samurai was "meant" to be… proud, determined, warriors… avoiding a fight would be seen as a lack of honour… having the opportunity to engage an enemy and not doing it would be the same.

So you have to understand that yeah, the samurai were largely "honour-bound"… but what that meant was very much dependent on what the idea of "honour" meant at the time, and in that culture.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 27, 2014)

arnisador said:


> They were...but 'honor' is always culturally defined.  Where I grew up, kicking during a fight was considered a foul, like biting.


 
Me too, although being a miltary brat I didn't grow up in any one place.
On the other hand, having started TKD at the ripe old age of 7, I didn't hesitate to kick. Not that I had that many schoolyard fights; something else I attribute to the TKD.


----------



## Kan Ryu (May 11, 2015)

Good topic - sorry for arriving a little late.
To go back to the original question - and to give "the simple answer":
Yes, it was a samurai's responsibility to uphold the law and he had the right to kill.
The samurai was also accountable for unfair action, and also for not acting, where acting would have been considered just/correct.
There are many stories, some horrific, some heroic.
"Hagakure" by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, a Samurai, has many good stories and examples of the complexity of Samurai ethics. Of execution, of punishment for wrong execution and many examples of, according to Yamamoto, just and unjust harakiri.
It's a great book, definitely worth a read.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 12, 2015)

Hi Asher,

Hagakure is a very interesting read, but it's dangerous to take it as anything other than one particular, rather right wing, individuals take on things… highly idealised and removed from the events and realities of what he was talking about. You also have to be rather careful as to which translation you look at… some are great, some are good, some are best left for kindling… 

Oh, and particularly when talking about such subjects, the term "harakiri" is rather… uh… vulgar. The more polite term is "seppuku".


----------



## Kan Ryu (May 12, 2015)

Hi Chris.

I have only read one translation, and it was good.
I don't follow you regarding the right wing thing and also, I don't understand what you mean about "removed from reality". Yamamoto Tsunetomo is telling stories he has seen or heard about.
Am I not correct?

Harakiri (kun'yomi - Japanese reading) is used by most Japanese in speach, Seppuku is the written term (on'yomi - Chinese reading). Vulgarism has nothing to do with it though, the on'yomi reading is also spoken by higher classes in Japanese society.
As far as I understand, there is nothing vulgar about me writing "harakiri" in roman letter.

Cheers,

Asher.


----------



## Kan Ryu (May 12, 2015)

Also, I recommended the book to refer to the culture of the Samurai and the question about their right to be judge and jury. This is a topic it describes quite well, from a point of view, obviously.
Yamamoto has his opinions but, the stories, in themselves, are objective for anybody to read.
I did not recommend the book for any political reasons or to discus any political issues anybody should have with it.


----------



## Kan Ryu (May 12, 2015)

Also, I recommended the book to refer to Samurai culture and ethics and to the question regarding their right to be judge and jury. These are topic's it describes quite well, from a point of view, obviously. Yamamoto has his opinions but, the stories are objective in their own right, for anybody to read.
I did not recommend the book for any political reasons or to discus any political issues anybody should have with it.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 17, 2015)

Kan Ryu said:


> Hi Chris.



Hi Asher.



Kan Ryu said:


> I have only read one translation, and it was good.



Okay… whose?



Kan Ryu said:


> I don't follow you regarding the right wing thing and also, I don't understand what you mean about "removed from reality". Yamamoto Tsunetomo is telling stories he has seen or heard about.
> Am I not correct?



Well… you are and you aren't.

Yamamoto was rather conservative in his views… he ascribed to a particular idealised view of the "glory" of samurai and battle… however, due to the time he was born in, he never experienced anything of the kind himself. That's what I meant… I never said he was "removed from reality", I said he was removed from the realities of the stories he was talking about (combat, violence, war etc), as he was (also) removed from the events themselves. I'll deal with the stories themselves in a bit.



Kan Ryu said:


> Harakiri (kun'yomi - Japanese reading) is used by most Japanese in speach, Seppuku is the written term (on'yomi - Chinese reading). Vulgarism has nothing to do with it though, the on'yomi reading is also spoken by higher classes in Japanese society.
> As far as I understand, there is nothing vulgar about me writing "harakiri" in roman letter.



Harakiri is spoken by what was the lower classes… and is considered (at best) a colloquialism. It's important to note that it's not exactly just an alternate reading… the kanji are actually reversed (腹切りfor "harakiri", 切腹 for "seppuku"). And, speaking as someone who trains in an art that deals with such topics, the distinction can be important to note.



Kan Ryu said:


> Also, I recommended the book to refer to the culture of the Samurai and the question about their right to be judge and jury. This is a topic it describes quite well, from a point of view, obviously.



Yeah… and, as I said, it's dangerous to take it as anything other than one person's take on things. The same way it's dangerous to take any single position as being authoritative or universally correct… you mentioned in your first post on this thread that "Yes, it was a samurai's responsibility to uphold the law…" which is not really correct either. While what equated to a police force was often lead by samurai, it was far from every samurai's role or responsibility, among a number of other issues with the idea (such as changing roles and definitions based on time period, location, local governance, and more).



Kan Ryu said:


> Yamamoto has his opinions but, the stories, in themselves, are objective for anybody to read.



No, actually, they're not. They are told by Yamamoto, chosen by him, with his particular emphasis, for his reasons and to express his beliefs and opinions… a number of which go against some more popular ideas (which only show that they are far from objective).



Kan Ryu said:


> I did not recommend the book for any political reasons or to discus any political issues anybody should have with it.



And I get that… but a wider appreciation should also not be a bad thing.


----------



## Kan Ryu (May 18, 2015)

I joined MT to be informative on Japanese martial arts, Bushido, meditation, to name a few topic's - and also to spread the word of Jinenkan London's existence.

I never really wanted to get deep into discussions about politics, objectivity vs. subjectivity, correct use of the Japanese language, a.s.o., so, I'm gonna keep it short and end my comment here for the time being.

Firstly, I am glad we agree that it is fine to say harakiri in this day and age, on such a forum as MT.

Secondly, I still recommend the book as a source to assist in understanding the culture of the Samurai.
I never said it was the Bible of this topic.
I believe objectivity is there to find in the stories, no matter the authors reason to choose them or his comments to them.
I am sorry we don't agree there.

Sometimes you need to seek danger to find truth, and sometimes just to get the daily shopping.
I am sure people can differentiate fact from opinion - if not, then I cannot protect them by not suggesting a book, whose author can be somewhat extreme in some of his opinions.
Danger is everywhere.

Lastly, if Yamamoto is removed from the reality regarding this discussion, then what are you and I?

I hope somebody reads the book and learns some of things, I found useful to learn therein.

Simon, I would gladly read any literature you may be able to recommend on a similar ground as Hagakure.

Peace,

Asher.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 22, 2015)

Right… 



Kan Ryu said:


> I joined MT to be informative on Japanese martial arts, Bushido, meditation, to name a few topic's - and also to spread the word of Jinenkan London's existence.



To deal with the second thing first… we're not here for you to advertise. If you want to do that, contact the administrators about the rules and fees associated.

To deal with the first… you came here to be informative? Really? Asher… not to put too fine a point on it, but… you've been training in the Jinenkan since 2009… that's 6 years at best… frankly, you're still very young and inexperienced in this arena. I mean… you want to be informative on Bushido and Japanese martial arts? Really? Based on exactly what?



Kan Ryu said:


> I never really wanted to get deep into discussions about politics, objectivity vs. subjectivity, correct use of the Japanese language, a.s.o., so, I'm gonna keep it short and end my comment here for the time being.



So… you want to be here to be informative, but getting into deep discussions of aspects of the areas you feel you can be informative about is not what you're interested in?



Kan Ryu said:


> Firstly, I am glad we agree that it is fine to say harakiri in this day and age, on such a forum as MT.



We don't. I said at best it is considered a spoken colloquialism. That is a far stretch from saying I agree it can be/should be written. Here or elsewhere.



Kan Ryu said:


> Secondly, I still recommend the book as a source to assist in understanding the culture of the Samurai.
> I never said it was the Bible of this topic.
> I believe objectivity is there to find in the stories, no matter the authors reason to choose them or his comments to them.
> I am sorry we don't agree there.



For crying out loud… Asher, you brought up Hagakure, all I said was that it should be entreated with a modicum of understanding about it's context, source, and origins. Not that it had no worth in the discussion, but that it was not a be-all end-all vision of samurai culture… it was one particular individuals' romanticised views. Too often it's seen as an accurate overview of the way samurai thought and acted… which it isn't. It was that (common) pitfall that I was cautioning against.



Kan Ryu said:


> Sometimes you need to seek danger to find truth, and sometimes just to get the daily shopping.



What on earth are you going on about here?



Kan Ryu said:


> I am sure people can differentiate fact from opinion - if not, then I cannot protect them by not suggesting a book, whose author can be somewhat extreme in some of his opinions.



You can suggest the book… but a wider understanding of what's being offered is just as valuable. That's the point.



Kan Ryu said:


> Danger is everywhere.



And again… huh?



Kan Ryu said:


> Lastly, if Yamamoto is removed from the reality regarding this discussion, then what are you and I?



You've seriously missed the point, Asher. In most of this… 



Kan Ryu said:


> I hope somebody reads the book and learns some of things, I found useful to learn therein.



Sure… and people get things out of the Gorin no Sho as well… but realistically, they get the "wrong" things… because they don't actually get the context. I was hoping to illuminate that (to a degree) with my comments on your suggestion. Of course, I note that you've pretty much ignored my questions as to which translation you've read… 



Kan Ryu said:


> Simon, I would gladly read any literature you may be able to recommend on a similar ground as Hagakure.



Who's Simon?


----------



## Kan Ryu (May 22, 2015)

Oh, sorry, I meant Chris - not Simon.

Now, really, you cannot judge my ability to be informative upon the duration of my membership within an organization. Nor do you have the right.
Nor am I willing to defend that ability here on this thread.
Time will have to tell.

Please, let's stop this here Chris.

I recommended a book. I have that right - it is my opinion. I liked the book. I did not want to analyze it on-line. I have done that as I read it. It is my personal business. That is my choice.
If you made a thread on the book, I might consider to comment, but I don't like being forced out in a discussion about it, as you have done.

I felt you came down on my right to opinion as an authoritative force on right and wrong in your first comment to my post.
It didn't seem like you laid your thoughts down as an opinion, but as the absolute truth.
That's why I reacted against your comment.
Had it been laid down as an opinion, I probably wouldn't have continued the discussion. 
I gave the title of the book to the author of this post for his own discretion and interest.
You could have given him your opinion on it.
Instead you chose to try to teach me and him what we should think of it.

I am sorry if we misunderstand each other.

Let's keep it cool ;o)


----------



## Kan Ryu (May 22, 2015)

Regarding this question:
*
So… you want to be here to be informative, but getting into deep discussions of aspects of the areas you feel you can be informative about is not what you're interested in?*

No, it's not like that. I recommended the book for the accounts of Samurai actions upon other humans and the following judgments on these actions - in accordance with the question of the thread.
From my first post:

_*"Hagakure" by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, a Samurai, has many good stories and examples of the complexity of Samurai ethics. Of execution, of punishment for wrong execution and many examples of, according to Yamamoto, just and unjust harakiri.
It's a great book, definitely worth a read.*_

We have discussed the question of objectivity and disagree, which is fine.

Everything else is off topic and is what I was referring to not wanting to go into deep discussion about. I never recommended the book as a source to understand f.ex. the soul of Bushido or the way of the Sword.

I would have recommended entirely different books on those accounts.

Just for the record. I want to be careful about which discussions I get into as this is a public forum, that is why I do not wish to be dragged off topic.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 22, 2015)

*Okay, let's stay on topic!*

I would also recommend the Hagakure as a reading reference as well.  I would also agree that it should be just one of several.  In order to get a broad picture of Japanese culture and in specific the Samurai, etc. *one will have to do some serious research.  *

Let's stay on topic and keep things polite!


----------



## Jameswhelan (Sep 7, 2015)

What's really interesting about Yamamoto Tsunetomo is that he was a samurai of Saga domain. Saga domain was co-tasked with the security of Nagasaki port, the only open port in Japan in the Edo period. It could be a dangerous hotbed of intrigue, faction fighting, sectarian rioting, contraband smuggling and so on, so the Saga-han samurai were among the most acquainted with violence and its management in the Edo period.


----------



## Breaking Allen (Jan 1, 2016)

CNida said:


> Tsujikiri sounds horrid.
> 
> That it was even legal makes me wonder. I had always thought that the samurai were an honor-bound people.


Just like what's "right" and what's "wrong" is culturally defined, so is honor. Just like other people have said, I figure I'd elaborate...
A prime example is murdering a cheating spouse in China. There was a trial in the U.S. (Google) of a Chinese tourist killing his wife after he found her cheating on him. Did he go to jail? NO, because the laws in China (at least at the time) didn't view this kind of act as wrong. Instead, it was justified. Americans typically would be against this. The average Chinese citizen probably wouldn't be against this, given the law. Such is the same with being 'honor-bound." You may view Tsujigiri as being not honorable, but a typical samurai might find it very practical. Also, be sure not to generalize. I'm sure some Samurai over the course of many years disagreed. Everything regarding a group of people is *subjective.
*
Besides, the Samurai didn't have incredibly high legal rights in Japan throughout those many years, as opposed to people with higher positions throughout different Japanese territories. It was very dependent on the years though, obviously. As other people have pointed out, even servants were often samurai. They weren't viewed as a sort of "white knight" at all. Just people who served.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 2, 2016)

Er… 



Breaking Allen said:


> Just like what's "right" and what's "wrong" is culturally defined, so is honor. Just like other people have said, I figure I'd elaborate...
> A prime example is murdering a cheating spouse in China. There was a trial in the U.S. (Google) of a Chinese tourist killing his wife after he found her cheating on him. Did he go to jail? NO, because the laws in China (at least at the time) didn't view this kind of act as wrong. Instead, it was justified. Americans typically would be against this. The average Chinese citizen probably wouldn't be against this, given the law.



Nope. No such law exists. There are cultural aspects to take into consideration, but no, no such law exists. The closest found in a slightly vague defence law in Hong Kong which states that the jury may find the accused not guilty if it can be demonstrated that the victim provoked, either through words or actions, the act, to the degree that the perpetrator was beyond control.

The case you're citing is most likely the one of Dong Lu Chen in New York, who bludgeoned his wife to death after she admitted her adultery. During his trial, a cultural expert, Burton Pasternak (professor of anthropology at Hunter College at the time) gave testimony that in China, women are sometimes "severely punished" for adultery… however he could cite no examples of adulterers being murdered (beaten, yes, but not killed). He noted that the act of adultery would be viewed as "an enormous stain" on the cuckolded man, his ancestors, and his progeny… and that oftentimes the community would intervene to prevent a violent encounter. His testimony was still considered weighty enough to provide some form of "special circumstances" in the case, and the jury elected to name Dong Lu Chen guilty of second degree manslaughter, rather than murder, giving him a 5 year probational sentence. See here: The Cultural Defense



Breaking Allen said:


> Such is the same with being 'honor-bound." You may view Tsujigiri as being not honorable, but a typical samurai might find it very practical.



Er… no. There was little "practical" about it… it was a practice given the sheen of practical reasons, but really, had little to offer there.



Breaking Allen said:


> Also, be sure not to generalize. I'm sure some Samurai over the course of many years disagreed. Everything regarding a group of people is *subjective.*



Okay… not sure exactly what you think they were disagreeing over, but… okay.



Breaking Allen said:


> Besides, the Samurai didn't have incredibly high legal rights in Japan throughout those many years, as opposed to people with higher positions throughout different Japanese territories. It was very dependent on the years though, obviously. As other people have pointed out, even servants were often samurai. They weren't viewed as a sort of "white knight" at all. Just people who served.



Er… huh? The samurai were the higher ranking people for much of Japans history… of course, there were many ranks within the samurai themselves… but the point might be to not state such things unless you are aware of what you're talking about. Pretty much all of this is wrong in a number of ways.


----------



## Breaking Allen (Jan 2, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Er…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point was that he said he thought they were honor-bound, and my point was that what somebody in the west views as honor-bound is completely different than what it means in a different part of the world. It is ethnocentric to believe your culture's view of honorable is the definition of honor-bound around the world. This is something I learned in a college course, at least. Just a simple correction, because I feel that culturally, they were very honorable. Mainly pointing out it is still honorable, just in a different perspective. Sorry if I was incorrect about a trial, my teacher had used it as an example of ethnocentrism before because Americans might view an act like that as wrong, while another culture might now. However, if it's untrue, it's still a pretty good "what if" scenario on understanding the difference of perspectives based on your culture. For example, take a look at this article: Crime of passion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In brazil, the act of murdering an adulterous spouse is very leniently treated in most cases.

Regarding Uruguay: 
"In Uruguay, crimes of passion continue to be legally tolerated; in certain circumstances, the law exonerates a perpetrator when a killing or a battery was committed due to "passion provoked by adultery".[23] Article 36 of the Criminal Code provides for this:

_Artículo 36. (La pasión provocada por el adulterio)_[24]"


So, excuse me for coming off as though I was starting an argument, I was simply trying to insert my input on our views of Samurai's authority at that certain point of time. And I recently read this article: Japanese Feudal Military Hierarchy
As it states that they were just above the Nobility Court in regards to the feudal ranking system. I had seen the ranking before, and took it as a "common warrior" perspective, but I now understand it was a bit higher, but not quite warlord status. Sorry for any errors in my prior post. Hope you can see my points, if you can. I appreciate your response 
Also, about the crossroad killing mention, I was trying to say that it wasn't frowned upon like a modern day person might view it. It was a common practice, if my reading is correct. And doesn't make them any less honor-bound, because their culture didn't define it as wrong as our culture would obviously do.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2016)

Breaking Allen said:


> My point was that he said he thought they were honor-bound, and my point was that what somebody in the west views as honor-bound is completely different than what it means in a different part of the world. It is ethnocentric to believe your culture's view of honorable is the definition of honor-bound around the world. This is something I learned in a college course, at least. Just a simple correction, because I feel that culturally, they were very honorable. Mainly pointing out it is still honorable, just in a different perspective. Sorry if I was incorrect about a trial, my teacher had used it as an example of ethnocentrism before because Americans might view an act like that as wrong, while another culture might now. However, if it's untrue, it's still a pretty good "what if" scenario on understanding the difference of perspectives based on your culture. For example, take a look at this article: Crime of passion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> In brazil, the act of murdering an adulterous spouse is very leniently treated in most cases.
> 
> Regarding Uruguay:
> ...



Oh, don't worry, I got the argument you were making… and it's largely correct. The problem was with your methods of supporting your argument.



Breaking Allen said:


> So, excuse me for coming off as though I was starting an argument, I was simply trying to insert my input on our views of Samurai's authority at that certain point of time.



Well, that's the thing… your views are not an accurate reflection of history, or reality.



Breaking Allen said:


> And I recently read this article: Japanese Feudal Military Hierarchy
> As it states that they were just above the Nobility Court in regards to the feudal ranking system. I had seen the ranking before, and took it as a "common warrior" perspective, but I now understand it was a bit higher, but not quite warlord status.



Yeah… look, to be frank, that article, such as it is, is not something to rely on for accurate information. The lower level writing alone indicates a lack of academic credibility, but more to the point, the lack of supporting links or citations, combined with some rather poor understanding of the actual historical structure, and honestly, you can ignore it from now on. These errors include separating "samurai" from "Daimyo", "Shogun" and others… all of whom were samurai themselves.

The following list was put together by a samurai historian named Chris Glenn, who lives in Japan, and is a member of a number of groups dedicated to preserving the actual history of the warrior class. He frequently holds lectures (and is often invited to present them), hosts Facebook pages, has written books, and is a radio personality in Japan. This list is taken from one of his Facebook pages, albeit abridged from the presentation given there:



			
				SamuraiHistory&Culture said:
			
		

> The hierarchy of the Samurai, from the top down.
> 
> SAMURAI RANKS: 1.
> 
> ...



As you can see above, ranks such as Daimyo and Shogun were samurai themselves… with the highest ranking being part of the nobility. Of course, it's also important to note that even the idea of who could be a samurai changed depending on the period… prior to Hideyoshi, it was pretty much open to anyone who could join an army and distinguish themselves. After Hideyoshi, it was restricted (in the main) to those descended from previously identified samurai family lines.



Breaking Allen said:


> Sorry for any errors in my prior post. Hope you can see my points, if you can. I appreciate your response



No problem. As I said, I can see what you were trying to get across… but your choice of examples were inaccurate, which simply undermined your points in the first place. One thing to remember is that, honestly, you're very young (18)… and a number of members here have been studying this for longer than you've been alive… in cases, two to three times that length… in addition, there are some very well read individuals here, so it can behoove you to be sure of what you say before you say it. 

I like that you're enthusiastic… I love that you're interested. But it's not a race… and your martial background isn't in this area… that's okay. Take time to ask questions, learn, grow to understand what is good and bad information. Presently, you're so new to this you haven't developed a way to differentiate. Again, that's normal… so stick to what you know (definitely), and asking questions. We're always more than happy to confirm or deny anything you come across. 



Breaking Allen said:


> Also, about the crossroad killing mention, I was trying to say that it wasn't frowned upon like a modern day person might view it. It was a common practice, if my reading is correct. And doesn't make them any less honor-bound, because their culture didn't define it as wrong as our culture would obviously do.



Yeah… your reading is not correct. As I said earlier in the thread, it was illegal, and a capitol offence… so yeah, it was frowned upon. Again, take a bit of time, read a bit more, and we can start to build your understanding.


----------



## Drew Ahn-Kim (Jan 3, 2016)

Varies greatly depending on the era, prefecture and emperor of the time.


----------

