Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard Japan compared to England. You know, both island countries with large populations, living just off the coast of the nearby continent. In Japan, this is a fairly common comparison, and has been since the Meiji Era coinciding with that nation’s late entry into the waning imperialism of the late 19th Century. Still, obvious similarities aside, there are significant differences that make the comparison less suitable than the simple apples-to-apples—or perhaps island-to-island—analogy it might otherwise appear.

Let’s start with the similarities. Japan and England both exist as island nations near the rest of the continent with which they are associated. Dover, England lies a mere 33 kilometers (20.5 miles) off the coast of France. By comparison, the Japanese island of Tsushima lies about twice that distance from the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula. Neither of those distances posed significant hurdles to the migration of peoples and movement of military forces throughout history. That said, double the distance, double the obstacle, a point that emerges when you compare the number of invasions England has suffered with those of Japan. More on that in a bit.

Next, both peoples drew from the cultures and civilizations that dominated the continent on the far side of their salt-water moats. For the English, inclusion in the Latin-dominated Roman civilization created enduring similarities with the continental peoples and nations that have greatly facilitated trade and diplomacy. In a similar manner Japan borrowed heavily from Chinese civilization, though in the beginning receiving advances through a distinctly Korean lens, establishing a sense of sameness with the continental cultures that also allowed both trade and long-standing diplomatic relations.

Both peoples developed expansive trade networks that supported the meager natural resources available to an island nation. England would create an empire upon which the sun never set, dissipating in the aftermath of World War II, with remnants of that system surviving in an enduring and close relationship with Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada. For Japan this is a bit of a stretch, given the Tokugawa Shogunate’s Sakoku or “Closed Nation” policy that more-or-less forbade trade with Europe, while providing ways around the kowtowing associated with the Chinese tributary system for over two hundred years. Still, prior to the invasion of Korea in 1592 and after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, Japanese goods were traded regionally and worldwide.

Finally, both peoples seem to share social values, emphasizing propriety, self-restraint, and modesty. It can be said without much exaggeration that these traits—those exhibited by the average traveler from one of these countries—are, perhaps, the most enduring images we retain, perhaps even begging the other comparisons indicated above.

While the similarities may appear compelling, as with most things, the nuanced understanding provided when one looks past the surface indicators paints a very different picture and helps highlight key differences. Let’s start with the most important.

Japan’s relationship with Asia is quite different from England’s relationship with Europe. The greatest single difference has to be that none of the Asian powers ever reached out and successfully invaded or occupied Japan. A Jurchen pirate raid in 1019 A.D., two failed Mongol invasions in 1274 and 1281, and a trio of Goryeo Dynasty Korean anti-piracy operations against Tsushima Island in 1389, 1396, and 1419 were the extent of Japan’s exposure to invasion or occupation until 1945. Three of the six events only affected Tsushima Island, and the others were limited to a small area near modern day Fukuoka City on Kyushu.

England, on the other hand, has been invaded so many times by so many different groups, it becomes hard to tell who’s who without a score card! The Romans invaded in 55 and 54 B.C., coming to stay in 43 A.D., establishing a Roman Province there until 410. The collapse of Roman influence led to a dizzying series of invasions and raids by multiple Germanic and Norse peoples. This culminated in the 11th Century Norman conquest of England wherein a Norse-French people overtook the formerly dominant Anglo-Saxons (both of Germanic descent).

Japan never once fell under the rule of a continental power, whereas England has found itself invaded and occupied again and again throughout history. While England has essentially been invasion free since the unimpressive Battle of Fishguard in 1797, its early history is replete with military conflict and the forced acceptance of foreign cultural standards and norms that forever after changed society there and affected how England relates to its continental neighbors. Helps explain, to a certain degree, why England has been drawn into successive continental European wars.

That same relationship with the continent does not exist in Asia, where Japan sees itself as the only nation to have successfully staved off such forced cultural and societal input. The result is a society even more insular than might otherwise be expected, especially given the exceptionally long duration of diplomatic relations with surrounding nations. Japan actively sought cultural, technological, and religious input from China and Korea throughout those long associations. Yet, remaining independent, the island nation was capable of picking and choosing those foreign aspects they wished to adopt, making for an almost designer culture that we now see as modern Japan. Essentially Japan is the way it is because their forebears chose to adapt the way they did whereas for England these changes were, at least until the 11th Century, forced upon them. What a difference 30 kilometers (just 19 miles) can make, the added distance allowing Japan to avoid continental military affairs in general. In fact, Japan has really only once intervened in an on-going Asian dispute (663 A.D. in support of ally Baekje), with disastrous consequences that convinced them to never do so again.

As for trade networks—the fruits of empire—there exists a significant difference between those of Japanese and English history, but it has mostly to do with historical timing. The British Empire, as it’s come to be known, started early, established in the “New World” as early the late 1500s. This, the “Age of Discovery,” was an historical period characterized by sudden and decisive technological dominance over the rest of the world’s civilizations by European nations locked in a cycle of conflict and subsequent innovation. This brought much of the world under European control, but pound-for-pound, none were so successful as the English and the Dutch.

Yet, by the time of Japan’s Meiji Restoration, and subsequent desire to stave off European dominance by becoming an imperialist power themselves, much of the world was already “spoken for” by the powerful nations. As well, attitudes toward colonization and imperialism were beginning to change around the world—as was the accepted nature of what was and wasn’t acceptable on the battlefield—which meant that by the time Japan joined the game, the rules had changed. Whether Japan understood that and plowed ahead anyway or simply didn’t grasp the nuance, is debatable, but after nearly ten years living and working in Japan, I generally come down on the side of the latter interpretation.

Winning successive wars against China and Russia in 1895 and 1905 respectively, Japan hoped to gain some credibility on the world stage as an imperial power and did, in fact, gain control of Formosa (modern Taiwan) and Joseon Korea. Both would become Japanese colonies until forced to relinquish those territories in 1945. Yet other territorial acquisitions won during the wars were contested by European powers who wanted to see those largely Chinese lands remain in play and available for further exploitation. The result being that Meiji Japan came to feel that the game was tilted in favor of the older imperial powers, leading to a growing disaffection that would bloom into Japan’s siding with Germany in World War II, despite having joined the Allied Powers in the Great War. Why side with Germany and not near-twin England? Germany had few Asian colonies to take—since Japan had already seized most of them during World War I—and the Japanese saw the war as an opportunity to poach colonies from the Dutch (Indonesia), French (Indochina), and, yes, the British (India, Hong Kong, Singapore, and maybe even Australia).

Today, Japan finds itself the object of latent distrust and politically-fueled hatred by former colonial peoples for its short stint as an imperial power, in a way that England doesn’t really experience. England maintains good relations with former colonies, despite some very long periods of rule, yet Japan, having only dipped its toe in imperial waters—a mere fifty years from start to disastrous finish—continues to feel the effects both diplomatically and, occasionally, financially. This longer-lasting negative sentiment owes in large part, I believe, to the fact of Japan’s long history of diplomatic relations with the countries involved, documented to well over 2,000 years. As well, the difference in post-colonial angst can be attributed to the distances involved as the English didn’t colonize France, but instead locations in far-away Africa and Asia. Here, Japan colonized the neighbors … and the neighbors simply refuse to forget.

While I will avoid any discussion of shared social norms—always matters of contention and as such, hotly debated—I will say that the politeness ascribed to both peoples seems different to me. I’m not entirely sure if that’s a reflection of the underlying reason for the politeness, be it a desire for propriety and order, fear of shame, or any of a hundred different reasons, but there seems to be a difference, and it shows up most vividly in sarcasm and comedy. Still, there is so much subjectivity inherent to any kind of social comparison (especially coming from an American!) that I’d rather leave that to experts and/or those who have a lot more time on their hands for the PAGES of caveats required to frame the issue and do the topic justice.

I hope this comparison, my tale of two islands, sheds some light on both the differences and similarities between these two phenomenal island peoples. I’ve said it before, but I’m a firm believer that the more we know about one another, about different cultures and societies, the less likely we are to look at them as “others.” In reality they’re just versions of “us” born in different surroundings and raised within different societies.

So much of who we are and what we believe as individuals is transmitted to us by the environment in which we grow up. This is a social inevitability and underlies any sense of individualism as we are only individuals within a given framework, a given societal norm. The fabric of any society, any civilization, is tied to the historical facts, beliefs, and even myths of the generations that went before. These cultural elements have an inertia all their own and take a long time—or significant societal trauma—to change.

The Japanese and the English are very different people with a very different past, regardless of surface similarities. And yet, still, at their core, they remain people, caring about their children’s education, worrying about how to make ends meet, struggling with a difficult boss, dreading return to work on Monday, and consumed with issues related to health and human mortality. These are almost universal human commonalities, and bind us together closer than we could ever imagine. But you have to get to know those “others” in order to reach that level of understanding. In order to appreciate our similarities with one another as opposed to things that would otherwise set us apart. Trust me, there are more than enough people out there already doing just that—sowing seeds of dissent and distrust—for whatever reason, be it personal, financial, or political gain.

Don’t be content with their—or my—blathering. Go find out for yourself! Meet someone from a different world and find out what makes them tick. It might just open up a whole new world of understanding for you … and change the way you meet “others” forever after.

M.G. Haynes