Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

tokyoweekender.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#31

Post by moomin »

somenameforme wrote: post #18
kybernetikos wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a dumb saying. Good times are created by weak people working together to defeat strong people. Most hard times are created by "Strong Men" fighting each other. Just take a look around the world - is it countries under the sway of warlords that have the best times? Or is it countries where the institutions are stronger than the individuals, where rulers have been limited or deposed by groups of individual…

You don't understand the saying. If you want to find some of the most anti-war people there are, speak to veterans who have lived through such. If you want to find some of the most pro-war people there are, talk to people who have never experienced the consequences of such. Out of curiosity I just looked up 'us warmonger political advisor guy' because his named temporarily escaped me, and search delivered - John Bolt…

A lovely example of this is Starship Troopers and The Forever War. Both were written by veterans, but only one of them was written by someone who served during wartime. Unsurprisingly, it’s the anti-war one.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#32

Post by crooked-v »

bloomingeek wrote: post #19
kybernetikos wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a dumb saying. Good times are created by weak people working together to defeat strong people. Most hard times are created by "Strong Men" fighting each other. Just take a look around the world - is it countries under the sway of warlords that have the best times? Or is it countries where the institutions are stronger than the individuals, where rulers have been limited or deposed by groups of individual…

Just finished a book about the Hundred Years War, before that, one on the Thirty Years War. Both have a glaring similarity, the "weak people" were consistently plundered, raped and killed by the "strong" people. When will the working class people understand that the elite are just a few bad decisions away from their total destruction? (Here in the US we seem to be on some kind of precipice.)

Of course, many of those "strong people" were themselves peasants who joined up with mercenary companies to support themselves after their own livelihoods were destroyed by warring armies.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#33

Post by mantas »

kybernetikos wrote: post #7
mantas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then those men you're calling „weak“ are actually strong...

Strong together . Strong, when they choose to support each other. Weak otherwise.

Ability to band together is a strength.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#34

Post by mantas »

praptak wrote: post #8
mantas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then those men you're calling „weak“ are actually strong...

"Good times" is a property of the political system as a whole and has little to do with "strength of men" unless you bend backwards to redefine strength.

Good times is not a property of political system. It’s overall life property. Including politics and whatnot.

Producing a quality political regime needs strong men too.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#35

Post by mantas »

kybernetikos wrote: post #23
tbrake wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's actually completely useless. The definitions of "weak" and "strong" are extremely malleable depending on your own subjective assessment of the person/people. It's an almost-aphorism; nearly useful, but not quite.

Not only that, but "good times" and "bad times" are equally ambiguous - good times for who? I have a feeling that the saying is used primarily by people who imagine themselves strong and think that the good times in history were when the strong were taking from the weak, whereas I think that good times in history are when the weak are protected from the worst abuses of the strong.

When famine hits or you get attacked by another country, it’s not about weak being protected from the strong. It’s about one society getting into trouble.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#36

Post by mantas »

salomonk_mur wrote: post #17
stormfather wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how anyone can look at the generation that survived the great depression, and look at boomers/millenials/gen Z and not see the truth of it

The generation that survived the great depression, caused the great depression. If they were strong as you imply how could they cause bad times? Dumb phrase.

It was caused by the previous generation.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#37

Post by kybernetikos »

mantas wrote: post #33
kybernetikos wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong together . Strong, when they choose to support each other. Weak otherwise.

Ability to band together is a strength.

I agree, the ability to lend your strength to benefit others is a moral strength and it's key to human flourishing and achievement. Where I might disagree though is if you think that this is the kind of strength that most users of the phrase in question are thinking of.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#38

Post by kybernetikos »

mantas wrote: post #35
kybernetikos wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but "good times" and "bad times" are equally ambiguous - good times for who? I have a feeling that the saying is used primarily by people who imagine themselves strong and think that the good times in history were when the strong were taking from the weak, whereas I think that good times in history are when the weak are protected from the worst abuses of the strong.

When famine hits or you get attacked by another country, it’s not about weak being protected from the strong. It’s about one society getting into trouble.

And perhaps this is the core of our disagreement - you see a country being attacked by another and you blame those hard times on the victim while I blame it on the attacker.

I say it's a problem of unrestrained strength, of strength misapplied, not a problem of some people being weaker than others.

And an enormous number of famines are caused by conflict, or historically by dumb central government by overly strong tyrants.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#39

Post by mewse-hn »

ozgune wrote: post #4

> However, a wise man once said: “[It] ain’t about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward; how much you can take and keep moving forward.” Ujiharu may have lost Oda Castle nine times, but that means he also won it back eight times, almost always with smaller armies. His refusal to accept defeat and his iron will to get up and keep fighting is why many historians reject the “weak…

I love the complete tonal whiplash from the very next sentence:

> Ujiharu lost Oda Castle so many times because he made bafflingly bad military decisions.

Re: Oda Ujiharu: Why the ‘weakest Samurai warlord’ is admired

#40

Post by kybernetikos »

jmuguy wrote: post #11
kybernetikos wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a dumb saying. Good times are created by weak people working together to defeat strong people. Most hard times are created by "Strong Men" fighting each other. Just take a look around the world - is it countries under the sway of warlords that have the best times? Or is it countries where the institutions are stronger than the individuals, where rulers have been limited or deposed by groups of individual…

Another way of reading the saying is that the weak men are weak mentally, they're cruel and inept. So maybe outwardly "strong"... but not really.

It's a nice reading, and I do think that the ability to take the wider view, to be prepared to suffer and fight for principles rather than immediate personal gain, to band together with others even at personal cost is an enormous strength.

I just don't think it's what people using this phrase mean.

Post reply on HN