Grokilta kun kysyy aiheesta niin kertoo kyllä että Japanilaisilta historioitsijoilta löytyy kyllä paljon vastakkaisiakin näkemyksiä. Yasukelle ei esimerkiksi annettu sukunimeä joka on ollut se samuraiden yksi keskeisimmistä jutuista.
"
Historical records, such as the Shinchō Kōki by Ōta Gyūichi and Jesuit accounts like those of Luís Fróis, confirm that Yasuke was given a stipend, a house, and a sword by Nobunaga, and he served as a weapon-bearer, a role of significant trust. These privileges align with what some historians argue were markers of samurai status during this era, when the term "samurai" was not yet rigidly defined as an inherited social class (a formalization that solidified later, in the Edo period). For example, Japanese historian Yu Hirayama has argued that these attributes—stipend, residence, and sword—indicate Yasuke was a samurai, as they fulfilled the contractual relationship between lord and vassal typical of the time. Hirayama asserts there is "no doubt" Yasuke served Nobunaga as a samurai, emphasizing that social mobility allowed individuals to be elevated to such a rank by their lord’s favor.
However, not all Japanese historians agree. Scholars like Pierre-François Souyri and Yuichi Goza have expressed skepticism. Goza, a medieval history specialist, has stated that "nothing proves that Yasuke had such qualifications" to be definitively called a samurai, suggesting the evidence is inconclusive. Other historians, such as Daisuke Watanabe and Katsuhiro Kaneko, similarly question whether Yasuke’s role rose to the level of samurai, proposing he might have been a valued retainer or servant (kosho) rather than a full-fledged warrior. They point to the lack of explicit documentation labeling him as a "samurai" or "bushi" (a more precise term for warrior) and the absence of a family name, which later became a hallmark of samurai identity, though this was less critical in the fluid Sengoku context."
...
"In summary, Japanese historians are divided. Some, like Hirayama, affirm Yasuke’s samurai status based on his privileges and service, while others, like Goza and Souyri, caution against the label due to insufficient definitive proof. The lack of consensus reflects both the ambiguity of historical records and the complexity of applying a modern understanding of "samurai" to a 16th-century figure."
