Hi Folks - I'm disappointed that no one has commented on the ideas or questions s/he plans to raise in our encounter tomorrow. We're hoping for an engaging discussion. The groups:

Self-strengtheners
Kathy
Dennis
Cynthia
Lizette
Iris
Sherry

Reformers
Sal
Sara
Matt
Angela
Andrew
Gail

Revolutionaries
Marcos
Haena
Robert
Richard
Kurt
 

While I was part of the Reforner group under Liang Qichao, I am definitly more intrigued by the writings of Sun Yatsen. His background is facinating and the way that he pulled from his education, and time in Hong Kong in Medical school, in exile in Europe, and then in Hawaii as well. Coming up with a 5 yaun government, (building on the idea of 3 branches of government) and then infusing some of what already existed in China:

1. Executive Yaun

2. Legislative

3. Judicial Yuan

4. Examination Yuan

5. Censor Yuan

This mix clearly comes from his experiences outside of China and shows a desire to not completely revolutionize the country by keeping the Examination Yuan. To me his plan is almost that of a reformer, of those other couries he had spent time in with 3 branches of government, and infusing parts of China that he saw as beneficial and could continue to work.

Sun Yasen's plan for 3 stages of the revolution and that would then lead to an organized establishment of the new government enabled Chang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi) to continue his ideas and ideals for a new China even after his death. 

Chag Kai-shek (Jang Jieshi)  insprired me,  that he advocated for self rule by different ehtnic groups who are still part of China today. He referrences NOT wanting to be like Japan was in Korea. His ideas for Nationalism and allowing self rule for other ethnic groups within China is refreshing, in that it acknowledges the need for a Nationalistic Chinese governments, and alllowing the same for others. This form of Nationalism where in Sun Yatsen's words "Allows their indigenous civilization to fourish and absorb what has worked in other places of the world." I may be looking at it through rose colored glasses, but it sounds pretty good to me! Anyone else have thoughts?

I also enjoyed being on a team, and it started to make more senese as we kept going with it. I wasn't as prepared or really understand as much as I would have liked, until we were in the middle of it. I found myself having to look back at the readings mid debate. I was able to put some parts of history together in a way I hadn't before through listening to the arguements of the other groups. When doing this with students it would be easier to give them some information on their group they are part of, rather than have them glean it from readings, or at least clarify before it begins. Maybe an outline, or even teach all groups about each other, and then they all have info for the debate. 

While reflecting on Session #4 with Professor Dube, what really began standing out to me was the relevance of our beginning talk on Hong Kong in 2019. After learning much more about mainland China's attempt to control Hong Kong, and Hong Kong's consequent desire to "take back" the autonomy they were promised, I clearly see the connection to the Qing Dynasty's own control of its people. 

As Professor Dube wanted us to remember, in pre-modern societies, governments only desire two things: 1) revenue (usually through taxing) and 2) secuirty (holding on to power). Although Dube emphasized that "Qing Accomodation" existed, and they were "light on the land" in terms of their government officials, it seems part of the internal rebellion by the Chinese people was a by-product of the kingdom's intense control over the economy. The fact that only twenty-four merchants were allowed to do business with the West seems to be a direct attack on, not only foreign traders, but all Chinese buyers & sellers themselves. In the eyes of the Chinese citizens, the fact that the Customs Inspector General himself was a foreigner might have also been received as a blatant disrespect toward Chinese citizens' own ability to trade. 

Although there were certainly many factors that led to the revolution, the Chinese government's control over its people during the Qing Dynasty (and today, in its control over Hong Kong) seem to be a direct contributor to rebellion amongst its people.

I also found myself thinking about the relevance of Hong Kong to what we're learning, and how what's happening there is in many ways a perfect encapsulation of the themes and history that we're studying. Whether it's the legacy of European intevention, the conflict over forms of government and westernization, the response of a centralized government to internal dissent and crises, and discussions about where China is headed going forward, it seems to be a great connection between the past and the present. Following it in real time is also a good reminder for us, and our students when we use examples like this in class, that although things seem inevitable in hindsight when we look at them in the history books, things are never certain in the present.

This was an interesting journal article about how someone's death can be used for historical propaganda.  Even more facinating is how different political movements can use the same person to serve their own political ends.  Qui Jin was a revolutionary who was executed in a public way.  This made her a symbol of revolutionary ideas and a martyr for the cause.  Her memorials were constantly changing as a result of political forces (some in favor, others seeking to destroy her memory) and the tug and pull between the communities where she was martyred and her more distant "homeland" where her family lived.  I could almost feel the tensions between her children, who wanted to fulfil their filial duties of visiting her gravesite, and the community where she was martyred.  Another aspect of her memory being enhanced was the result of the location of her first memorial (surrounded by other luminaries) and the involvement of a popular poet (Qiu Yuzhang) in penning a cycle of six poems.  Also of importance was the dignity and beauty of the black memorial stele.  As it turns out, in death, Qui Jin and her ideas (and those later attributed to her) became more powerful than perhaps even in her life.  

You brought up the idea that if the Chinese monarchy reformed their government and empowered citizens to have a "stake in their government," perhaps they could have avoided revolution. It made me wonder if that could have been the case? There were countries and Empires with an abslute monarchy that were able to transition to a consitituional monarchy, letting go of some power and satisfying some of the desires of the revolutionairies. Not letting go of absolute power does't seem to have served any monarchy very well, and loosening the reigns seems better than being completley overthrown. During the lecture my impression of the revolutionaires in China were wreckless, but as I read the documents after class I saw something completely different. I think my view of revolutionairies in China were influenced by Mao's version of having young people destroy all the old, but revolution isn't always about destruction. In the case of revolutionairies against an absolute monarchy it may be the only option if they aren't willing to give up power.