> Not sure why you label generalisation essentialism?
Because you generalize by deploying tired old tropes about Confucianism and a conformist, "harmonious" society, which were never really true.
> Your opinion appears biased in terms of: (a) 20th century; (b) Tokyo.
Well, considering that we are discussing Tokyo in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the context of the article posted here, that seems appropriate.
> Furthermore, while protest movements have of course existed I would argue that they are few and relatively late to develop (massive discontent precedes) relative to other societies.
Demonstrably untrue. During the late 19th century, and most of the 20th century, protests were a significant aspect of Japanese society -- more so than in many western countries.
> It is a fact that many of Japan's oldest buildings are direct derivations of Tang Dynasty architecture, and in some cases (Kyoto) city layouts (urban plans) were directly copied from China.
If you were talking about city street layouts instead of architecture, you should have written about city street layouts instead of writing about architecture. In any case, Kyoto is unique within Japan. Within Kyoto, the urban architecture is not really Chinese, even if the street layout used to be. The primary influence of Chinese architecture in Japan can be seen in temples, not in urban buildings.
we are discussing Tokyo in the late 20th and early 21st centuries
OK, scope difference. 'The Japanese Urban Zoning System' != modern Tokyo.
Demonstrably untrue. During the late 19th century, and most of the 20th century, protests were a significant aspect of Japanese society -- more so than in many western countries.
I would argue that extreme temporary conditions (war, forced modernization/industrialization) are a skewed sample of a society's normal behavior.
If you were talking about...
The title is 'The Japanese Urban Zoning System': city street layouts are closer to this than architecture.
Within Kyoto, the urban architecture is not really Chinese, even if the street layout used to be.
I would argue that modern architecture in Kyoto is demonstrably descended from Tang Dynasty woodworking techniques, courtyard layouts and Chang'an-style high density urban layout. The street layout is still based on Chang'an.
Because you generalize by deploying tired old tropes about Confucianism and a conformist, "harmonious" society, which were never really true.
> Your opinion appears biased in terms of: (a) 20th century; (b) Tokyo.
Well, considering that we are discussing Tokyo in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the context of the article posted here, that seems appropriate.
> Furthermore, while protest movements have of course existed I would argue that they are few and relatively late to develop (massive discontent precedes) relative to other societies.
Demonstrably untrue. During the late 19th century, and most of the 20th century, protests were a significant aspect of Japanese society -- more so than in many western countries.
> It is a fact that many of Japan's oldest buildings are direct derivations of Tang Dynasty architecture, and in some cases (Kyoto) city layouts (urban plans) were directly copied from China.
If you were talking about city street layouts instead of architecture, you should have written about city street layouts instead of writing about architecture. In any case, Kyoto is unique within Japan. Within Kyoto, the urban architecture is not really Chinese, even if the street layout used to be. The primary influence of Chinese architecture in Japan can be seen in temples, not in urban buildings.