Menu
close
Anonymous.
clay dubeThe fiftieth anniversary of China's cultural revolution was this past May. When I first lived in China, memories of it were fresh. In late 1980, the "Gang of Four" which included Mao's widow, Jiang Qing, were put on trial. Shortly thereafter the Communist Party's Central Committee ratified an official version of the Party's history, including the events of 1966-76. The articles contained in the pdf below are from that "resolution," the People's Daily's editorial marking the 50th anniversary, and a Financial Times piece on efforts to forget the cultural revolution.
Please read these materials. What makes it so hard for China's rulers to discuss the cultural revolution? Why did the anniversary largely go unremarked upon? Are those outside China too fixated on disasters such as the cultural revolution? What is the utility for outsiders and for the Chinese to talk about why the cultural revolution took place and to discuss what happened? Do you talk about controversial topics in your classes? How do you do so in order to facilitate open dialogue?
clay dubeLike Xi Jinping in China and ABE Shinzo in Japan, South Korea is lead by someone who isn't the first in her family to hold political power. Park Geun-hye 박근혜 is South Korea's first female leader. She is also the daughter of Park Chung-hee, who was South Korea's authoritarian leader from 1961-1979. The current President Park won election in democratic South Korea. Her father seized power in a military coup in 1961. He was assassinated in 1979. These articles focus on the current president, including the extent to which she and her nation have confronted South Korea's authoritarian past.
Please read the BBC profile and the Washington Post article. If you have time, please read about why President Park made a recent visit to the US and what she and Pres. Obama pledged.
AnonymousOur essential question for English language arts this week is: How do people from different cultures contribute to a community?
Last week it was: What can traditions teach you about cultures?
I introduced this subject to my class today by rolling down our world atlas and showing them where East Asia is, and then specifically where Japan is. We talked as a class about some of the things we do when we visit a cemetery, like bring flowers. We also talked a bit about the National Cemetery we have here in Riverside, and how we celebrate Memorial Day to honor those who have died for our country, some of whom are buried in this national cemetery.
I projected the picture and article from my computer onto the screen, so they could see the Yasukuni Shrine. I read them parts of the article, especially the part describing the Japanese belief, and manner of, honoring the deceased. Then I had my students discuss in partners what they had learned about the Yasukuni Shrine. This tied in to our activities earlier in the day about culture, and the ways a culture is shared with a community, as well as our work during the last two weeks about what things make up a culture. Their religions, beliefs, food, dance, music, language, and etc. My aim was simply to add this ceremonial Japanese tradition to their knowledge of how different cultures around the world are similar to and different from our own.
AnonymousAn interesting connection between the dedication of the Yasukuni Shrine and American History would be the dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg as a specific example. Both events were marked with ceremony and either speeches (Abraham Lincoln and Edward Everett) or poetry (Emperor Meiji). A remarkable contrast is the level and intensity that the Japanese dedicate themselves to those enshrined at Yasukuni than Americans do for their own fallen heroes. Their feeling that those enshrined at Yasukuni are Kami, honorable spirits who are still remembered and included in memory as living people. In America, we have numerous national cemeteries and memorials through which we honor our dead, but for us, we consider them to have passed beyond into a greater spiritual realm. They are people of the past, worthy of remembrance, but not inclusion with the living world.
The question this raises is whether or not, we as Americans should draw upon the intensity of the example set by the Japanese when we remember, and teach about our past.
edited by jhayden on 10/3/2016
AnonymousIt is was interesting reading about Korea’s first female President, Park Geun-hye, during election times in the United States. There are some similarities that she shares with our Democratic candidate, including having family ties to the Presidency, being involved in controversy, and obviously, being a woman. Park Geun-hye came into the position with a desire to make changes in the areas of economic revitalization and security; however, when your neighbors with North Korea, the latter of the two is near impossible. She also had to overcome her father’s mistakes and political tone in the area of human rights. Although he had successes in boosting the economy, it was important for her to acknowledge the mistakes and injustices that were made, and apologize to the citizens.
Being an American, I am always fearful of the instability and irrational thinking of North Korea’s leader. This was a concern for me 3 years ago as I traveled to visit my family in Seoul. My sister in-law and her family are very nonchalant when it comes to the “danger” in living so close to North Korea. I wonder what their thoughts were with the promises of “family reunions”, and “inter-Korean tours”, offered by Park Geun-hye? I am also curious if Park Geun-hye really thought that she would be able to negotiate and work with Kim Jong-un or if they were just empty political promises that are so often made when one is running for office.
AnonymousPrime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the Yasukuni Shrine in 2013 seems unusual for a supposed ally of the United States. The visit invoked the ire of both Japan’s neighbors and the United States because it is viewed as a public embrace of Japan’s aggressive military past. The shrine is not the equivalent of Arlington Cemetery—no one is buried there—its purpose seems to be more of a locus for the preservation and promotion of Japanese nationalism. In this sense it is not unlike flying the confederate flag; it represents the stubborn resistance of a defeated aggressor to impose a discredited vision of history.
I would use this topic to help my students understand how economics and politics are interrelated. Japan’s stagnant economy makes Abe’s leadership precarious. Just as interwar economic problems in Germany helped give rise to ultranationalist politics, to a much lesser extent Abe’s political fortunes are tied to keeping his conservative base happy in troubling economic times. Unfortunately for Japan, Abe's actions could have far reaching consequences; anger and distrust will no doubt weaken Japan's soft power in the region. In the classroom, I would emphasize that comparative advantage is predicated on positive relationships between trade partners, and that stirring up painful memories amongst the victims of Japan's imperial past for the sake of political expedience can and will undermine Japan’s economic future.
AnonymousI found these articles on the Yaskuni Shrine to be very interesting especially if we look through other historical lenses. In class we brought up the Confederate war memorials that dot the South and the way recent events have changed the public perception. Obviously, these monuments represent different things to different people and we must respect that. I, as a historian, believe that they have their place but should not be in public parks, statehouses, ect. To ignore them seems wrong and ignorant because that pushes you further away from the conversation. Prime Minister Abe made an interesting decision to visit, and a surprise visit to this particular shrine cast light on Japan's past and pushed their neighbors even further away.
I would use this in my class when we study East Asia and specifically discuss why Japan is so censored about their past. I could see drawing connections to every cultures hiding of shameful pasts. My aim would be to show students how all history is censored and start a discussion about what topics they have learned about that have been censored. I could see this being a Socratic Seminar after some intro history about WWII in the Pacific.
AnonymousI think there can be many reasons why China's authorities may not discuss the Cultural Revolution. As a person who studies governments I believe that they hope by not educating people, the gross parts of history are forgotten. This anniversary is a reminder that the country and her rulers are hiding the past where the rulers were responsible for many innocent deaths. I think we often look at different historical missteps in class. They are important to remember as they often lead to the next event. I do talk about controversial topics in class including foreign aid to countries and the refugee crisis. I have done it as a debate, where no one got to chose their side, and as a socratic seminar. I liked the Socratic Seminar as it lead to a discussion where both sides are represented and researched it. I think students gain a lot of skills from having to form a decision and then discuss with people who may not agree. An open dialogue is important for a high school classroom.
AnonymousMonuments and memorials of the dead are powerful symbols for the living. They are meant to remind people of things like sacrifice, power structures, religious commitments, political agendas and so forth. However, these symbols can be interpreted in different ways by different people. The Yakusuni Shrine appears to stress the importance of the Japanese monarchy, the religio-cultural importance of Shintoism, nationalism, and probably traditional and conservative values. However, for those in Korea, China and the US, raising up this monument is akin to raising up Japan's militarized past, it's imperial aggression, and perhaps even evil on a global scale. Ultimately, one monument symbolizes two different historical narratives, both of which were revived by Prime minister Shinzo Abe's visit.
Concerning the question of, is it like Arlington or the Confederate flag, I think one could argue it is like both. Does the Confederate flag symbolize Southern culture or simply racism and hate? The answer is, it symbolizes both. And both views are interpretations rooted in historical narratives and movements. The question then becomes, which interpretation should be influential, dominant, and promoted. Is it Japanese nationalism or Japanese militarism that tourists are experiencing while at Yakusuni? Are we emphasizing the honor of fallen and divine Japanese warriors, or is that overshadowed by a few Class A war criminals?
The comparison to Arlington is more complex. Because Yakusuni represents a national memorial to the dead, we can see parallels to Arlington, our national cemetery. Despite some similarities, Arlington was created by the victors, it holds actual, undivinized bodies, and it holds no particular religious tradition. Moreover, as a symbol of aggression and hate, Arlington, at least as far as I know, doesn't have reputation. Yet, are there really no soldiers in Arlington that committed crimes or evil? And it should be remembered that Arlington does have a monument to Confederate soldiers--the very war that killed so many Union soldiers Arlington was created to inter. In some sense, Yakusuni may actually be more like a Confederate grave site, because ultimately, Japan was the loser of the war, and thus the narrative of moral right and historical importance have to be muddied.
I believe that ultimately, the problem with such monuments, is that history never comes out purely on the side of what is morally right or as some timeless truth. Whether it is the donated buildings at Oxford by colonial powers, universities built by dictators, the Confederate monument at Arlington, or the Yakusuni shrine, these are multifaceted symbols which defy perfect reflections of moral truth. In many ways they reflect the people who are inspired by them.
P.S. I still think there is a moral right and wrong, I just wanted to problematize the various symbols and try to be non-judgmental. Boo confederate flag and war criminals ; )
AnonymousInitial impressions and observations: I) The poster displayed contains many characteristics seen in propaganda posters of the the 20th Century. The faces of the Gang of Four are caricatured as hard, surly, conniving and totally lacking in any trustworthy features. Sharp, pointed teeth are used to on one face give it an animalistic quality.
II) It is interesting in the initial explanation of the Cultural Revolution there is an admission that Mao Zedong, the great of the Chinese Revolution, was guilty of an error in his understanding of the threat posed by hidden Capitalist forces. Assertions however seem to insist that this is the kind of mistake great men make, and that the true evil lies at the feet of those who would exploit Mao's error to their own advantage.
III) The May 17th article seems to further expand on the Cultural Revolution as a mistake that should never be repeated. It's divisive nature is now considered counter-productive to modern China's goals for unity of purpose and action throughout all levels of their society. the
IV) The article of May 13th has a strong emphasis on the uncertain way the Chinese government is confronting the 50th Anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. There seems to be a wish that this event would pass with a minimum of attention, yet the very nature of it requires that people acknowledge it happened. It's effects on society were undeniable and the source of this conflict unquestionable. One apparent reason for this hesitancy is that the government does not want a comparison drawn between it's current activities to suppress dissent and activities carried out during the Cultural Revolution. How accurate this comparison is depends on the strength with which the government responds to unfavorable comment.
AnonymousSince we discuss current events in my English class, I think it would be interesting to share the articles about President Park Geun-hye with the class. I would like to create a lesson where the students could compare and contrast Hillary Clinton and Park Geun-hye using these articles--and finding ones that include Clinton's past experience. It is interesting what things these two women have in common including that they both previously had been first lady (Park Geun-hye in her mother's stead). A Venn diagram would be instrumental in helping my students organize their evidence. Park is a controversial leader and regarding the accusations made in the Washington Post article, I have heard similar concerns raised about Clinton. We could even broaden the topic to leaders of countries that come from the same family--America certainly has many examples from both sides of the aisle. I think my GATE students would find this interesting.
Per the recommendation to look at Park's recent visit with Obama--I read some articles on line, but couldn't find a recent visit to the US. She did visit here a year ago, however, Obama did meet up with Park in Laos September 6, 2016. As North Korea had again launched a missile the day before--both Park and Obama reconfirmed their alliance and stood united against North Korea's provocations. The mention of sanctions against North Korea were mentioned in both press releases--the one in 2015 and 2016.
AnonymousI found Monday night's class informative and timely. As I was driving from the Bakersfield drop off point to my home at 10:45 pm I was listening to talk radio and the caller brought up the question of China and Russia joining forces against the US. We hadn't discussed this point in class--maybe it will come up in future discussions--however my mind went back to the statistics shared earlier in the evening. Before this class I was under the impression that China held more of our debt than just $1.2 trillion dollars. (Which is a mere drop in the bucket since we have $19 trillion in debt. Even if China combined what is owed because of their loans to Fanny May and Freddy Mac WITH the $1.2 trillion AND what we owe Japan, it still isn't much relatively speaking.) Like many others, I had heard that we were "beholden" to China and would be in trouble if they demanded payment. Monday's class helped me understand the big picture. It also helped me with facts so I could share it with others that had been misinformed.
I found it very interesting looking at East Asia in relation to the rest of the world, especially regarding population and economics. My hope was to receive information that would assist my students in their understanding of global relationships in this ever changing world. First class--check. As our countries are so reliant on each other financially, politically, and socially it is important for me as an educator to bring this information back to my classroom and prepare my students for their future. I'm eager for the next class.
clay dubeHi Folks, I've attached the presentations in pdf format. You're free to use them with your students, but please do not otherwise post them or share them.
edited by Clay Dube on 10/6/2016
AnonymousFrom the first article, I was impressed by the degree to which President Park was sensitive to the past of her country and the role both she and her father have played in it. The affect this history appears to have had on her was one of heightened awareness of the role her father played. Many in her situation, having been so close to the seat of power, would tend to staunchly defend everything that the first President Park did. Yet because of her unique insight, she is able to stand back some from history and acknowledge the damage her father inflicted on the democratic process in South Korea. She does defend his actions and beliefs as having been necessary, but she seems to do so with enough understanding of the political forces that put her in power to realize that at the very least an apology must be made to the South Korean people. I also find it interesting that she shares one familial trait with the North Korean President, Kim Jong-un. Both he and she each have a political dynastic legacy, being children of former presidential leaders. That, however is as far as the similarity goes, as Kim is, for all intent and appearance, is unwilling to acknowledge mistakes of the past nor work to the benefit of his people.
The second article in some ways appears to reinforce the observations made in the first. President Park is willing to find common ground upon which to negotiate and work with her Asian neighbors. She has the intelligence to realize that a good relationship with China has the potential to help curb some of North Korea's more aggressive policies. China is the elephant in the room, or perhaps more correctly, the dragon. You cannot ignore it. It will not ignore you; so you open up dialogue with it so that mutual understanding can be established. Through that understanding problems can be addressed and potential difficulties can be worked out. Metaphorically, she is walking a tightrope between two great superpowers, doing her utmost to maintain balance and progress and hoping this relationship will benefit her people. In an odd way, she is in a similar situation as King Mongkut of Siam. He was forced to tread carefully between the imperial desires of Great Britain in Burma and France in Southeast Asia. He was successful in playing one off against the other so well that they mutually agreed having Siam as a buffer state between their colonial territories was a good thing. Whether her efforts will meet with success is something that we will see over the course of the next few years. It is to be commended that she has the courage to try this approach rather than rely solely on her relationship with the United States, especially when you consider the geographic proximity of China and the U.S. to her country.
AnonymousResolution on certain questions in the history of our party since the founding of the People’s Republic of China - Summary: The article states that Mao Zedong felt that Marxism was compromised by the infiltration of bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary revisionists into many facets of the government and leadership. And according to Mao Zedong these revisionists were responsible for capitalist sinister politics that could only be exposed “by fully mobilizing the broad masses from the bottom up.” The article goes on to argue that not only did he not have any “masses” but that there were no grounds for any of his assertions. It states that the Cultural Revolution was in fact a “political” revolution that went against Mao Zedong thought, which is the integration of the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism. The article continues with the assertion that Mao Zedong’s motivations were completely unfounded and that the “cultural” revolution did not reflect “Marxism, Leninism nor.. Chinese reality.” In fact, the article states, it confused its own people with “the enemy.”
China deploys amnesia on 50th anniversary of Cultural Revolution - Summary: The article states that the anniversary of the Chinese Communist party rule – the 50th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution – will pass without any acknowledgement of the decade of chaos and violence it caused. It seems the rural areas were hit the worse by the Cultural Revolution where many people were killed (1.5m) and persecuted (36m) by Mao’s “red guards.” This amnesia seems to be the mode of operation in which several dates in history are apparently washed over as a form of political “amnesia.” The specific amnesia of Mao’s Revolution could possibly be the result of avoiding having a comparison to President Xi Jingping’s “strongman” image as result of an administration that crushes “all dissent” even hallmarking an “anti-corruption purge.” The article also gives an example of a popular real estate developer, Zhiqiang, that was suspended from the Party for criticizing President Xi’s assertion that the media outlets must “protect the party’s authority and unity.” It is interesting to note his social media accounts (which had a large following) were removed and he became the target of a media attack from the government. In essence, the government rebranded him. His treatment was viewed as a “relatively light punishment.” What I find the most relevant is how the Party had to be conscious of how the public would react if he were treated more harshly – a direct acknowledgement of the reach and reach of power of social media.
Comparing and contrasting the first leader of the People’s Republic of China (Mao Zedong) to the Current one (Xi Jingping) based on these two articles it seems both men are/were heavily concerned with not only shaping but controlling mass perception to facilitate political gains. This is no different from any government, but with China being a communist government it seems that rulers have the authoritarian power to “enforce” their ideology. It will be interesting to continue to observe how social media – albeit controlled – impacts how dictatorships maintain their authoritarian power while having to cognizant of mass perceptions in way they never had before. Where once they had a stronghold these governments are now subject to the flow of information, forcing governments to become reactionary; evidence in it of itself of a loss of control. The biggest difference under which these two leaders operate(d) is the increasing use of social media and now with the rapid spread of information is putting unprecedented pressure on governments – all governments – to maintain control of perception/power. Even dictatorships with the power to enforce censorship, as evidenced by Ren Zhiqiang’s recovery, can no longer control perception but now have to react to it. I can’t help but wonder if under Ma Zedong’s rule, if Zhiqiang would have simply been killed.
edited by rcharles on 10/10/2016