I thought we had agreed that this was leading nowhere and I have no real wish to go around in the same circles, but if you insist on dragging up the side-topic again...
This obviously doesn't answer the direct question of whether or not Usagi murdered Gunichi
No it's a general statement against censoring his stories.
but it points to an answer of "absolutely not". The answer can be easily obtained by simply examining the definition of "murder". From Wikipedia (and by today's standards)
"In criminal law, murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which is traditionally termed "malice aforethought".
So if, say, a die-hard libertarian society made killing anyone you felt like and had power enough to enforce legal we shouldn't consider it as murder?! Now that's grasping far for any way to excuse it.
Usagi had every lawful excuse to kill Gunichi.
Only if we embrace complete moral ambivalence and accept any horrible practices as 'Culture' and 'Hey, it's tradition!'
By betraying Mifune
Betraying?! By saving his life multiple times and then seeing a situation as hopeless and leaving the battle when it was already lost?
not to mention the entire Mifune Clan, all of it's samurai and peasant class within it's provincial territory, dooming everyone to servitude under the dark lord Hikiji
Yeah, let's not forget to make the wild claim sound extra serious even though he did no aggressive act towards any of the described parties and served honourably with great risk for his life up to that point. You have cause to say that he made an error of judgement, but even that is disputable given that it would be unlikely in real life to reach a particular individual through a full warzone littered with enemy soldiers.
Gunichi committed an act even more cruel, dishonorable, and unspeakable than even Lord Hikiji's assassination of Mifune's wife and son.
By saving Mifune from said assassination? By making a rational evaluation? By not leaving his side until he thought everything was already lost? I notice that you think filling up lots of extreme explicitives makes a more solid case. It doesn't.
If you read issue 4 of Samurai, you can easily see that Gunichi's cowardly
Cowardice never constituted evil by any sane standards, nor was Gunichi a coward as proven by his many other acts. He simply wasn't suicidal for throwing away his life on a lost cause without letting his death make an impact.
actions helped contribute to the defeat of Mifune's army.
The army was already defeated.
Without both of his bodyguards, Mifune was exposed
The bodyguards were already too far removed to do anything by a realistic assessment.
but if Gunichi had been there to shield and protect his lord, it is quite possible that a re-grouping could have been successful.
Yes and given that he was very willing to do so just previously during the assassination attempt we have no reason to believe that Gunichi believed this was possible. Had he been beside the lord as then he likely would have fought for both of them going by his actions a few pages earlier.
Instead, by leaving his post like a coward, he committed a terrible crime, one of betrayal.
There are those explicitives again. A million decent cowards(/people who actually value their existence) together aren't nearly as bad as one truly evil man. Betrayal would be to chop down his lord from behind instead of saving his life, as he did repeatedly during many years.
He became a traitor, no worse that Buichi Toda.
I think you mean 'No better'. So trying to actively kill your own clan and lord for the sake of petty callous greed and truly turning the tide for the other side is no worse than retreating from a battle you believed to be lost? That's nonsense.
Even by today's standards, traitors to the US government are punished by death.
I wouldn't use the US government (
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/us-presidents.html) as a moral standard for anyone.
Maybe by today's standards Gunichi's actions would not be classifed as traitorous by the US government
The US government isn't exactly a beacon of decency and shouldn't be fanatically endorsed as such.
but by 17th-Century Japan's society, they were.
...and a great oppressive, fascist, cruelty-embracing, hypocritical society it was! Just because I'm northern european doesn't mean I have any level of respect for the horrible barbaric injustices of the feudal era or previous. We've thankfully grown beyond that level in several areas.
And to reiterate what Stan had once stated "it would be a grave error to judge a foreign society by our own standards."
Not in humanitarian moral respects it wouldn't. That would be to embrace complete moral ambivalence, which is one of the most callous apologist genuine states of evil humanity is capable of reaching.
Especially an historical society which no longer exists today (meaning the military dictatorship and prevailing society/caste system which no longer exists in Japan as their form of government today).
So it would be an insult to current japanese government to say that they used to have many monstrous aspects to their culture? That's like saying you insult me by stating that you don't like vikings or the current generally decent german society by saying that you don't care for nazis. I know that the current japanese government is actively trying to censor out information of their WWII era korean and chinese rape-camps (killing up to 800,000 if I remember correctly), so some ultra-nationalists may disagree, but still.
To add even more to the position that Usagi did not murder Gunichi and did not behave in a cruel and hypocritical manner, consider these:
The society itself was cruel and hypocritical, like most of our own european equivalients. 'Loyal' to the powerlust and cruelty of any lord no matter his virtue, being allowed to treat peasants in wantonly murderous manners and still claiming 'honour', slaying anyone who insulted or questioned you in the slightest in cold-blooded arrogance, rather than learning humility etc.
Usagi doesn't possess these traits, which is why the confrontation with Gunichi stood out as the one black spot on his reputation. Maybe not to the standards of his society, but to the readers used to him standing several steps above it. Mind you Gunichi himself had 'tested' Usagi in a life-or-death struggle as an initiation, which was even less warranted.
1) Usagi did not hunt down Gunichi as would a bounty hunter or one seeking revenge. In fact, like I pointed out before, we have no idea under what circumstances that immediate duel took place.
No but as it was presented it seemed like Usagi had either hunted him down or happened upon him by accident and forced him into a confrontation.
Did they just happen to stumble upon each other? Were there no words spoken? Doubtful. Most likely the duel was arranged and agreed upon by both parties. One could make the argument that Gunichi recognized his own crime and invited Usagi to kill him in a fair duel. So instead of a murder you have a suicide or sorts (remember what happened to the Mother in "A Mother's Love" -- Usagi did not murder the woman nor even kill her -- by that society's standards -- but instead helped her commit suicide). Perhaps Gunichi's way to commit suicide and cleanse his dishonor was to continue their duel from #2...and maybe even allow Usagi to kill him. Remember, Gunichi is a coward by definition and it could be that he was too cowardly to go through with Seppuku himself. It could be that Gunichi hunted down Usagi and with the intention of being killed. We really don't know the circumstances...yet.
Mind you I would fully endorse some retroactive continuity giving this explanation to untarnish Usagi's virtue, but as presented it seemed like grasping at straws.
2) But before we go there, let me point out that Gunichi himself indicated that he and Usagi may have been equals as far as skill with the blade, so it could not have been a murder by any means, but obviously a fair duel.
No he thought they were equal when Usagi had much less training and Gunichi himself was younger. Usagi must have been aware that he had turned much superior with the years.
But Usagi was a better samurai in that he would never betray his lord.
Gunichi didn't betray his lord, he valiantly protected him repeatedly and never turned against him. Toda was the true traitor.
Gunichi was only acting as a samurai. When worse came to worse, he chickened out like a coward and fled.
You use the coward word a lot, as if it's the worst trait on the planet. It's nothing evil in itself to value your own life. The most decent people I've known have always been sensitive enough to both value their own and other lives. Someone who will throw away his life on any fanatic suicidal cause 'for the greater glory' will generally be severely lacking in the compassion area. Also if Gunichi was such a coward how come he risked his life so frequently? He simply drew the line at an outright no-hope suicide ride which he didn't believe would change the outcome one bit.
For all we know, it is possible that Gunichi even knew of Buichi's impending betrayal, and was even a part of it, and fled the battle to allow Mifune to fight less protected. He could have easily killed Mifune himself when Toda's men started attacking Mifune's army. Perhaps he was torn by that decision... you really don't know since Stan has not revealed it at this point yet.
Yeah that sounds likely from a guy who saved Mifune's life a few days earlier.
Either way, even if it was a split decision to flee the battle, the crime is identlical, in the eyes of that society.
The crime is hardly identical. To put in years of loyal service where you saved the lords life multiple times and then make an evaluation that all was lost and nothing would be gained by throwing your life away doesn't equal outright betrayal for the sake of greed and power-lust.
Usagi simply carried out justice.
A very corrupt and twisted version of 'justice'.
Gunichi's death was demanded by honor, and by law (look what happened to Toda in the end). To allow Gunichi to live would have been a crime...and we all know Usagi is not a criminal.
'To let him live would be a crime and we all know he's not a criminal'... That has to be the sickest thing I've heard all day. In any case only by a very blindsided, hypocritical definition of 'honour'.
3) Do we really know what happened with Gunichi after he fled the battle? It was two years, and in those two years, what was he doing? We don't know. What we do know is that he did not bear the mon of Mifune on his livery. He obviously was either too cowardly to wear it, or knew of the dishonor he committed and to wear the mon would further add to his dishonor.
You use coward and dishonour quite a bit, as if you actually fiercely believe in the medieval barbaric contradictory definitions of the words. As noted above I think you're way off on your evaluation of Gunichi from either definition.
4) Usagi repeatedly made reference to remembering Gunichi as a friend, and that he was once a good samurai.
He behaved well up until a final mistake, yet he deserves to die. Yes I've heard it before.
Usagi most likely did not want to kill Gunichi, but it was something that had to be done. Whether or not it occured on the battlefield of Adachi Plain (Usagi was torn to go after and try to kill Gunichi for turning traitor), or two years later in a field, it did not matter. Honor had to be carried out.
That definition
isn't honour, just a primitive callous hypocritical justification of cruelty, self-righteous bloodthirsty arrogance and powerlust.
'He had to be sought out and killed, honour demanded it'... are you listening to yourself? Yes I realise the society's norms were different and from their perspective Usagi didn't do anything wrong, but the later Usagi certainly wouldn't have been so shortsighted or thought in such black and white terms.
Even on the surface, and using today's standards to pass judgment, Usagi's dealing with Gunichi could not have been considered murder.
Confirming my impression that you're seriously seeing the act as justifiable by today's humanitarian standards. Seeking out and killing someone by not giving them any way out should certainly be considered murder by any sane modern society. That there are lots of of lawless underdeveloped societies where murder is still socially acceptable is beside the point. The spirit of murder constitutes executing a predecided act of killing simply by deciding that you should.
That is, assuming you believe Gunichi was a traitor. And he was, by the standards, codes, and laws of that society.
Or at least by the blindsidec black&white perspective you're advocating. By more decent nuanced standards like the ones Usagi developed later on he probably wasn't. It was a major point of the story that Usagi started out very arrogant and bloodthirsty when just about to enter Mifune's service. He gradually reached greater levels of enlightenment later on.
This is a similar situation to another great comic named 'Thorgal' about a genuinely honourable compassionate and brave man being the only decent man in a society of evil vikings and trying to make his way without falling to their level of barbary (and also incorporating lots of fun off-beat sci-fi or fantasy elements). I much prefer my protagonists this way. Maybe surrounded by evil, maybe even accustomed to it, but absolutely not living their lives that way.
My problem lies in that he has this kind of unwashable old action staining his virtue. I'd much prefer your speculation above that Gunichi sought him out, though I find nothing 'cowardly' in atoning by dying a quick clean warrior's death rather than the pointless excruciating torture of seppuko, just more practical and still very painful. You're far too fond of using that word. Would
you torture yourself to death for the glory of a corrupt society or just prefer the viking death in action? Or hey, even better, even simply live out your life as a decent individual who tries to do honest work and help and support others more than he had previously as a means of truly making atonement.
Now should we repeat the same arguments another round or simply go on with the more entertaining main topics about who are the greatest swordsmen of the Usagi world and the comparative skills of Zato-Ino and Inazuma?
let's have fun !