Something interesting I found while researching for this was a LinkedIn article about someone's personal experience with the song, linked to the right. As a source its validity was questionable, but the sentiments in it were valid. And while it's a heartfelt read in its own right, what intrigued me was the second paragraph, where the author draws parallels between the struggles of Japanese migrant workers of the song's time, and the contemporary predicament of rural Chinese workers. The author comments on the shared sentiment of longing for home, away from the city where they reside for work. 

This stood out to me because it highlights a notable debate over the economic history of the two countries, as both China and Japan have had similar models and policies for development Both countries followed export-oriented models of industrialization, leveraging protectionist policies of high tariffs, currency controls, and state loans and subsidies to rapidly develop industries for global markets. At the same time, the countries have had very significant historical differences that have to be factored in when evaluating them. On the more technical side, Japan's economy has far less state ownership than China's does, while China has more foreign firms operating there than Japan does. From a broader historic point of view, the circumstances under which both countries adopted economic reforms were also different. Japan adopted their economic plans during the 60s as a response to discontent and internal divisions over American military presence, while China adopted it in the late 70s to pull the country out of poverty following the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. 

This analysis evokes Professor Wasserstrom's idea of imperfect analogy, where flawed examples are used to explain historical patterns in a way that doesn't fully represent them. Here the likening between the two countries has its roots in many factors. To a certain extent the countries are seen as broadly similar, being East Asian nations, related to a reductionist view of East Asian people being the "same" to some with a foreign perspective. There is also legitimate economic consideration, as both countries have achieved extremely rapid development, but also similar structural problems of credit-funded speculation and widening inequality. Again though, this partially stems from the fact that the economic policies espoused by these countries contradicted the Neoliberal thinking found in the West, particularly America. Compounding this is the perception in America of unfair trade practices and job-killing competition by China and Japan, sentiments that resulted in the Plaza Accord in 1985 to address Japanese currency controls, as well as the recent trade wars started by Trump against China. 

As a parting note for this section, I want to go back to the excerpt of migrant workers in Japan and China. The rapid industrialization and urbanization brought economic prosperity to both countries, but it also came with significant upheavals. Rural people in both countries found themselves impoverished as the rest of the country developed, resorting to moving to the cities to find work and the opportunity to move up in life. China in particular has a problematic situation where urban and rural citizens have differing access to public services like healthcare and education within the same location. The reason I bring up all of this is to home in a central point, that to simplify and reduce is often to misrepresent, and that we should be vigilant of what others tell us, but also what, and how, we think about the world around us.