session 1 readings 3 historical problems (10/3)

[Anonymous]

Profile: South Korean President Park Geun-hye
I have more questions than comments after reading this profile. Several points stick out:
1. She is the first female leader of a country that has the highest level of inequality. She had to tow the political line between young voters who wanted her renounce her father and older voters who by her associated to her father allowed her to overcome “deeply-held prejudices among male voters” which isn’t helped by the fact that she’s not married. Is feminism and/or the advancement of female equality in her country important to her or does she believe that by birth only she is qualified for office?
2. Her father – the former president – was assassinated and she later becomes president. (Her father seized power in a military coup and was killed by one of his own men.) Did she have to flee/fear for her life when her father was killed?
3. Her mother was assassinated when she was 22 (by a bullet meant for her father by a North Korean assassin) and then she had to take on the role of First Lady with the job to receive spouses of foreign heads of state. Despite her mother’s death at the hands of North Korea, she still wants to take on the role of uniting North and South Korea. She promises to reform big conglomerates and seek greater engagement with North Korea making herself a huge target.

Park in Beijing: The political transformation of Northeast Asia AND Obama, South Korean President Reaffirm U.S.-South Korea Alliance
The first article exerts, “Some external observers deemed it unseemly that an important U.S. ally would be present as 12,000 Chinese military personnel and an array of China’s most modern weaponry passed in review.” So clearly the U.S. and China have a “bilateral” relationship meaning we are neither enemies nor allies but we are two countries that are deeply intertwined economically. In short, we are reliant on a balance of power. However, Park is China’s next-door neighbor while being a political ally to the U.S. The United Nations force led by the United States fought for South Korea, while China’s People’s Liberation Army fought for North Korea during the 1950-53 war that ended with a cease-fire. [font='Times New Roman']I am wondering if for Park her attendance at this event was less about creating a united front against Japan as was China’s interest and more about moving forward a political objective to unite North and South Korea.[/font][font='Times New Roman'] [/font]Maybe her attendance at this event was a symbolic gesture to North Korea – either all or in part – had nothing to do with Chinese Political objectives. In the 2nd article, however, U.S. concern is with North Korea’s nuclear weapon program and South Korea is a strategic ally enforcing sanctions on North Korea to reduce the threat and to “deepen its isolation.” The bulk of the article express Obama’s views as to why the alliance with South Korea is necessary, however, it did end noting how Park was grateful for the U.S. defense of South Korea in exchange for South Korea enforcing the isolation/sanctions on North Korea.

In South Korea’s president, some see echoes of her repressive father
This article again illustrates how even dictatorships struggle with public perception in the face of new media. It begins with an example of a woodshop owner who printed posters he found on Facebook to display anti-Park rhetoric in his windows. It seems a large part of the population is not satisfied with some of Park’s decision making and anti-government protests are erupting. It seems that South Korea enjoys more freedoms than China when comparing Park to Xi. South Korea has access to social media including Facebook and a "more" democratic society that is “moving away from the authoritarian rule of the past,” which is indicative of not being a completely free society. Again we have a government heavily concerned with not only shaping but controlling mass perception even to the point of banning history books that do not express the political views of the government. Again the increasing use of social media and rapid spread of information places unprecedented pressure on governments – all governments – to maintain control of perception, but unlike China, Park has to maintain control without censorship effecting the citizens' access to mainstream social media.
edited by rcharles on 10/9/2016

[Anonymous]

It was good being back at USC in class with Professor Dube. Tonight we talked about a variety of thing, but the thing I most want to reflect on is the sharing and talking about Yasukuni Shrine. This shrine honors the fallen that have died serving their country. Not actual ashes or bones, but more of the spirit of the soldier. Arlington cemetery in Washington DC would be a similar concept. What makes it different and unique is the soldiers are worshipped as venerable divinities of Yasukuni. There are 2,466,000 souls said to be enshrined at this location. Since the dead are treated as they are when alive, rituals happen often at the shrine. With two major ones happening every year. The Imperial Family has a strong tie to the shrine. There has been a couple of scandals or interesting things that have happened over the years. One of them is when priests secretly enshrined criminals. Fourteen criminals were snuck in 1978. One of them was Tojo Hidecki who was a prime minister that served during the wartime in Japan.

The most interesting part of all this however; was seeing the actual pictures. The thing I loved the most was seeing the requests and prayers written for people on the boxes. There was a similar thing in South Korea. When you go to the top of Namsan Mountain to the North Seoul Tower there are thousands and thousands of locks filling the walls and even on these tree shapes. It is stunning. Words of love and heartbreak, dreams fulfilled and wishes not yet fulfilled. It is nicknamed “Padlocks of love” I have a lock bought, written on, and nestled somewhere in the thousands of others. I don’t think I would even be able to locate it if I were to go back. It is interesting how we honor our dead.

[Anonymous]

Anything concerning South Korea is always interesting to me, because of my family connection to the people and the country. In the article on the BBC website, “Profile:South Korean President Park Geun-Hye” written on November 1, 2013 it reports on the current President of South Korea. South Korea hasn’t always been a country where women are allowed to be in charge, but they have definitely taken the lead in the Asian arena. Being a woman, she has been scrutinized for not being married. Rumors swirl and the conservative society does not agree. This would never happen to a man. She was the first female historically in this position, and so far is well respected and liked. She does come from a long line of Korean leaders in her family. In fact her father, the former president, was essentially a dictator. He ruled for 20 years and created a coup to take over in 1961. She grew up in the presidential house and this life is all she has known. Her mother was shot down in an attempted assassination of her father. With this loss she was thrown into the spotlight and began her career in politics. She has apologized for her father’s human rights abuses, but defends his take over.

President Park is making a stand in South Korea in her relations with North Korea and the world. She is currently trying to build relations and interaction with North Korea, but has made it clear that she will not tolerate any actions that will threaten their National Security. She has proven true to her word on this point, closing an industrial zone in retaliation for weapon testing by the North Koreans.

It will be interesting to see how she rules and the decisions she makes in the coming years. Since North Korea doesn’t play by the playground rules, it will be interesting to see her responses.

[Anonymous]

The Yasukuni Shrine has stirred up criticism especially when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a visit. It raised awareness on the controversy against the shrine that worshiped the dead during World War I through the Greater East Asian War. Quite disturbing that the Japanese people there treat “the dead in the same manner as they were alive” and even offer meals to the dead everyday. Even the views expressed by the Yasukuni Shrine caused protest. It centered on the idea that Japan acted in self-defense rather than being viewed as the bully. Interesting how history can be manipulated in favor of the opposing force.
Some of these ideas can be shared with students by having them compare the controversy surrounding memorial sites in our own soil.

[Anonymous]

Based on the articles, it sounds as though China's rulers don't wish to discuss the cultural revolution, or it's anniversary, because they believe it was a great error. More importantly, they do not want it repeated. The more a subject is brought up in public forums, whether television, radio, or anything else, it brings it to the forefront of the minds of the people who hear about it. Whether their thoughts oppose or condone, it is, nonetheless, talked about. People talking about revolution every year on the anniversary is a dangerous precedent to set, because it very well could give rise to thoughts of another revolution, if living conditions are bad enough. That is too great a risk for the Chinese Communist Party. We don't run the same risk, here, because our revolution was decidedly different in nature, as well as our civil war. The conditions ceased to exist - British Rule/Slavery. I believe it is still relevant to talk about the current and former states of Chinese society, because there very well could be another upheaval and push away from Communism, at some point. The PARTY enforces amnesia on many sensitive topics, which helps them to maintain order in the way they deem necessary.
Yes, we do talk about controversial topics in the classroom, and open dialogue is easily facilitated by asking partners or groups to examine both, or all, sides of an issue. We are required to teach persuasive writing. There is nothing more persuasive than an authentically controversial topic. It is also very important to teach students how to research all views, and to be able to present differing views on a topic. It is good for them to see that they can divorce their emotion from a subject, and be able to talk or write about it logically, from multiple perspectives. It isn't bad to have strong feelings on a topic, but sometimes emotions get in the way of making a logical argument. (Multiple perspectives is also a GATE theme)

[Anonymous]

As a read this article, I began to try to find something that could help me to introduce it to my students. As I read the part that talks about the Japanese rituals to offer meals and words of appreciation to the dead in the same manner as if they were alive; I immediately thought about a ritual that is similar in Latin American: The day of the dead. Unlike the Japanese, the Latin American tradition takes place once a year and this is the only day in the year that food is offered to the dead in some countries like Mexico. There seem to be more differences than similarities between the Japanese culture and the Latin American culture. It important and interesting to learn about the cultural practices of other countries like Japan.

[Anonymous]

President Park is in a similar spot to every other elected official. When there is more than one person to vote for, there can never be unanimity in feeling about the leader who is eventually chosen. People often feel that they have to be critical of the person who was elected if it was not the one they voted for. It seems possible that she did pick up tactics and ideologies from her father, it would be impossible not to. So it seems logical that she may have slightly dictatorial propensities, even if she does genuinely care about her country and countrymen, and want to protect them. It is also easy for people to see that they are on a path to true democracy, but not at it's end, which can be frustrating for all concerned.

[Anonymous]

Coming back to President Park I think this would be even more interesting to teach now. I heard recently she is being asked to step down/ resign from her office. It would be interesting to look at female leaders and the number of accusations of corruption. I have seen may articles about the accusations of corruption and the gender gap. While this doesn’t mean that they are innocent it would be cool to have the kids look at this gender gap.

[Anonymous]

For those of us who are no part of a similar culture we may find “disturbing” to see how the Japanese treat their dead, but so you know there are other cultures with similar traditions than the Japanese. Some countries in Latin America such as Mexico do something similar to that. Mexicans make an altar and offer food to their dead on special occasions, the big difference is that Mexicans do it only once or twice a year, while the Japanese seems like they keep the altar all year long. Abe’s visit to the shrine was so criticized for the political implications and because it was seen more like a provocation than a cultural act.

[Anonymous]

Similarly, I was under the impression that the U.S owed much more to China than the 1.2 trillion out the 19 trillion. It is good to know that after all the U.S debt to china is not as high as we were previously heard. I am glad to learn the facts, so we can pass them to our students. Some countries in East Asia are in similar economic circumstances than some Latin American Countries. It seems that there is worldwide pattern, a few families are rich while the rest of the population struggles to survive.
I agree, as educators it is important to communicate to our students the intrinsic economic relations of nations in this world wide economy.

[Anonymous]

President Park is not winning the popular vote. In fact, mirroring the political figures under scrutiny in the U.S., many are calling for Park’s resignation. The cause? She’s embroiled in a fraud scandal. Here is footage captured on November 19, 2016, of protestors filling the streets for a mass demonstration demanding that Park Step down. http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?newsId=N1003897146[font=Arial] [/font]

I think the world is watching to see if she will step down. With so many in the U.S. worried that the president elect will use his presidency for self gain, I think this is an important topic to follow… and avoid. Trump’s win caused major instability for Park and just 9 days before this protest had to be assured by Trump that he would continue to maintain the alliance with South Korea. http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/10/13585524/donald-trump-phone-call-south-korea-park-geun-hye Now with a very real possibility that Park will be impeached, Trump’s assurances or the lack thereof are ironically the least of her worries.
edited by rcharles on 11/27/2016

[Anonymous]

I also thought this was interesting as in Germany they have a similar issue. There are no memorials to soldiers in WWII, while we can all agree the higher ups were very wrong it is interesting that there are no markers of the dead. I often think of this as a history teacher, do we only have the right to memorialize the dead if we win? In most wars there are men and women that fought, not because they believed in the cause, but because they were drafted or called upon. I think these memorials deserve to have education and historical centers to surround them and honor all of those who died.

[Anonymous]

I was all set to respond to this post a while ago, but then I started thinking, as you mentioned, about the Confederate monuments of the south and how people are even demanding that names of schools,etc. be changed. On the one hand, I can understand why people were upset by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to the shrine. Some said that he was attempting to "whitewash the history of aggression..." and that he was "taking Japan in a very dangerous direction." As a political figure, everything done and said carries tremendous weight. Words and actions must be carefully calculated. And after all of that, he's going to visit Pearl Harbor with President Obama. Does this visit have the same effect, attempting to whitewash the history of aggression?

There is definitely a discussion to be had about the acts of private citizens versus public officials, and that is a conversation that can happen in my classroom. There is a saying that actions speak louder that words, but what if the intentions of the actions are mistaken? What if people misunderstand motives? What happens then? I am also wondering what people's perception of him is like now. Are people still closely watching his words and actions, all the while sucking their teeth at the dangerous direction the country's heading?

[Anonymous]

I don't know why, but this is one of the most interesting periods in China's history to me. Think about it: a man rises to power and affects the destiny of his country for decades. Children rising up against teacher and parent, etc. My students were deeply engaged when they learned about the Cultural Revolution and Chairman Mao. They definitely developed strong feelings about him and the ideologies that he passed along in his Little Red Book. I think it was even more engaging for students to learn about the Cultural Revolution from children's perspectives. I think the thing that makes it so difficult for China to talk about the Cultural Revolution is the admission that it was a really messed up time. As one author wrote, it was Ten Years of Madness. I think this is also similar to the incident at Tiananman Square with the tank man. When you go to look for information, you can't really find much. The People's Republic of Amnesia is what one author calls it. It's easier to brush it away than to have to talk about the why. Shameful events are not pleasant or easy to talk about. So why talk about them when you can just avoid the subject.

Are those outside China too fixated on disasters such as the cultural revolution? I think there is important healing that takes place when those things are discussed and the more you discuss it, the less it is a thing that everyone is whispering about. Look at Germany, for example. The history of the Holocaust is taught multiple times in school and the students visit and have tours of at least one concentration camp. Monuments to those murdered in the Holocaust have been erected. There is an open conversation about the events. https://www.thelocal.de/20161019/how-germany-remembers-the-holocaust-world-war-two-nazis-jewish-history-germans By contrast, the history of slavery in the United States has been watered down, just as the Trail of Tears and the history of the California missions. People still have very differing views about the results of the Civil War and the institution of slavery, but there is no conversation. There are no monuments. In China, there are few, if any, monuments dedicated to the incident at Tiananmen Square. No one wants to remember, and everyone wants to forget, but people keep talking about it.

I do choose sensitive topics to discuss in class, very carefully. Students should be aware of the whole history of our country, good, bad, and ugly. One of the authors that we read in my English class, Mildred Taylor, said it best when talking about why she writes what she does. She said that she uses that language and addresses the subjects in history, even if it's not nice or pretty. It's not meant to be dressed up to look nice. It's meant to be honest and truthful. (My summation of her quote). I think once the protocol has been established for respectful conversation, and the students have had ample practice, the teacher's tone carries the discussion, at least, that's been my experience.
edited by cgao on 2/7/2017

[Anonymous]

May 16, 2016 marked the 50th Anniversary of China’s Cultural Revolution. Begun by Mao ostensibly to purge the Communist Party of bourgeoisie and capitalist influences, the Cultural Revolution was denounced after his death, but under the current leadership of President Xi Jinping, the Chinese government let the anniversary pass in silence. Why? Because The Cultural Revolution is an embarrassment and does not fit into the official narrative of Chinese History. The event created a decade of upheaval in China, leaving many dead and undermining the authority of the party. The official record of the event, released in 1981, states that “The history of the ‘cultural revolution’ has proved that Comrade Mao Zedong’s principal theses for initiating this revolution conformed neither to Marxism, Leninism nor to Chinese reality.” Instead of thoughtfully explaining the event and placing it within the context of Chinese history, the official party line has been that it was wrong, it should never happen again, and that’s all anyone needs to know. Unfortunately this has been a recurring tactic of the party when faced with unpleasant realities. According to the Financial Times article “The party routinely enforces a nationwide amnesia on other sensitive dates, notably June 4, the date of the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy protesters who had occupied Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.”

[Author]

Posts