The question that I have is this: Why do we would we expect either version of the Shogun TV series, both of which are based on the 1975 novel by James Clavell, to include black people in its narrative?
The novel certainly didn’t and the original 1980s television miniseries followed suit. So it stands to reason that the 2024 version wouldn’t. Even in a very far-reaching interest of inclusion.
And even if the show’s producers had peppered it with African slaves owned by Dutch traders, or as crewmen of questionable social status working aboard Portuguese ships, it would have only served to show black folks as so much background set dressing. This would’ve opened the production up to a different type of criticism.
Still another question I have is why, knowing already the source material’s firm footing in the white savior trope, would someone who wants to see black folks depicted bother watching the 2024 version at all?
To think that a miniseries called Shogun was somehow gonna tell a whole *different* story than the one told in the novel or in the previous miniseries kinda deserves to be disappointed.
Having said that, its disappointing to see how fervently we embrace revisionist takes that supplant the place of others in their own histories. One of the most egregious examples is that of Sakanoue no Tamuramaro.
And yes, there is certainly a consensus that Sakanoue was “something other than pure Japanese.”
I count myself among those who dispute the alleged blackness this legendary samurai, because there are any number of historical references that preserve his father’s line of descent.
That history records him as a direct descendant of Achi no Omi, who came to Japan from China during the Han dynasty but became a naturalized citizen of Japan.
Achi, by the way, was a great-grandson of Emperor Lingdi of the Eastern Han dynasty.
So much for the fanciful Ainu connection that quite a few of us have erringly embraced,.
I won’t bother offering any refutation of alleged statue of Tamuramaro described by Mark Hyman his book.
Still, it should be stressed that in “Excluded Presence,” a paper you refer to, John G. Russell indicates that the statues of Tamuramaro (and his wife) that he saw at Kiyomizudera in 1991 date to the late 17th century.
Also, the illustration of Tamuramaro that appears on the site linked in your text appears to come from the pages of Beatrice J. Fleming and Marion J. Pryde’s book Distinguished Negroes Abroad (1946).
The illustrations contained in that book were produced by the artist Lois Mailou Jones, and the painting of Tamuramaro on the site linked appears to be her work, not an interpretation of the samurai from any Japanese historical source.
Connected to the aforementioned, your piece also features a quote about Tamuramuro attributed to Jones, so there’s also that to tie in that particular illustration’s provenance.
The reference to stone huts of prehistoric Japan which date to 22,000 years ago is oversimplification of Japanese history to the extreme and has no bearing at all on medieval Japan. But our reliance on such in the effort to make an historical point about feudal Japan illustrates the dangers in taking a scattershot approach to this subject.
One minute we’re linking Tamuramaro’s origins to short statured “Negritos” of Asia while, in another, tying the samurai's origins to the indigenous non-black Ainu people of Japan. Then, in a vague effort, we tie in a description that cannot be verified of an assumed statue that showed the samurai with negroid features and who's “taller than his fellow contributors” in the hall where he’s placed.
[Queue Nick Young head tilt meme]
Anywho, it’s clear from your follow up (“The Story That Triggered Some White People Out of Their Minds”), which I only just noticed, this particular piece has drawn the angry racists out in droves. I really didn’t want my response to be part of the hate-filled deluge, but I still needed to have my say.
When the opportunity arises, when I see it, I’ll have things to say to them, too.
Be well.
