Session 2 - 9/28 (afternoon), Clay Dube

[cgao]

 

China’s Long 19th Century

In this session, we'll look at East Asia in 1800, but will focus on China in the 19th century. Because it's in the 19th century that Hong Kong enters the world stage, we'll also devote some time to discussing that city's remarkable history and uncertain present. We will also make assignments for our debate on Oct. 5: How to Save China.

Please read the following materials (available at the links below).

Manchu rule and hair -- What do the new rulers demand? What is their argument for the requirement?  (primary source below)

Emperor Qianlong to King George III, 1793 http://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-1793
-- What is the emperor's complaint? What does he expect the British monarch to do? 

The Treaty of Nanjing, 1842 http://china.usc.edu/treaty-nanjing-nanking-1842
-- What must the loser of the Opium War (1839-1842) provide the winner? What are the long term consequences of the conflict and this settlement?

Placards posted in Guangzhou -- What is being opposed? What actions is advocated in the placards?

The Taiping Land System http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/cup/taiping_economic_pgm.pdf
-- How did the Taiping plan challenge the existing social and economic order? 

Ridding China of Bad Customs -- How does the anti-footbinding society propose to eliminate the custom? What are Qiu Jin's complaints about the status and treatment of women? What does she call on women to do? What does the 1907 Yunnan newspaper article propose doing about opium? And, finally, why and how does 1920 article from Women's Magazine call for the eradication of indentured girl servants? How does the author propose using the concept of "face" (reputation) to fight against holding women as indentured servants?

Hong Kong
Treaty of Nanjing (1842)
Economist article on why China needs Hong Kong

Optional

Treaty of Wanghsia (1844)

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Sara Newman]

I found the collection of primary source documents in "Ridding China of Bad Customs" really interesting. The argumentation style for the arguments about footbining and an end to indentured maids reminded me a lot of the types of arguments presented by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and other American suffragettes. I was especially interested in the suggestion from the anti-footbinding society that, "By helping other people's daughters learn, one also helps one's own wife because only after women's education has been popularized can the foundations of a marriage be solid." I really like how the society draws the connection between social pressure to mutilate one's body to ensure marriageability and family status and access to quality education for people regardless of sex. I was really excited to see that over a century ago, the authors of the text were arguing that men would benefit from having more educated wives and that a marriage of greater education equality and personal capacity leads to greater marital happiness for both parties. This seems to be a very logial yet progressive idea. How common was this idea or other ideas about the importance/value of women's education at the time?

[Andrew Frank]

While listening to Professor Dube's lecture on "China in the 19th Century" on Saturday, I found myself especially intrigued at the ways that the Imperial Palace was shaped and reshaped over the course of its history. The changes the Manchurians made when taking over the country in 1644 with the establishment of the Qing Dynasty seem almost contradictory to me in a way. As noted in Saturday's lecture, the Manchus created a limited government, that allowed dual ruling (a Machu & Chinese in top positions), no change to the economic order, and a respect of the Ming Dynasty's religous practicies. If they really promoted such tolerance, my question is why they were so strict in terms of their hair edicts?

As mentioned in the reading from The Search for Modern China by Cheng et al., the colloquial saying at the time was a bit extreme: "'Lose your hair or lose your head.'" Was this simply a weak (and failed) attempt by the Manchus to enforce their culture, without doing any of the hard work to actually make it happen? As Dube mentioned in the lecture, the Manchus did "lose their distinctiveness" as a nation, as well as their language...Perhaps, if the Qing Dynasty practiced as much tolerance in terms of fashion, as they did in other areas, there reign could have lasted even longer than the 266 years.

[Andrew Frank]

I completely agree! The article was incredibly moving, in Qui Jin's ability to demonstrate how a Chinese woman's whole life is placed "in the hands" of others (from footbinding parents to matchmakers to "a family seeking rich and powerful in-laws" to her husband). Knowing now that even society would blame the women for her husband's abusive behavior, as "retribution for some sin committed in her previous existence," it is clear how ingrained sexism was in Chinese society (as in American).

This article was also greatly complemented by the 1920 "On Freeing Slave Girls" piece, which seems to illustrate how Qui Jin's work began to slowly take effect in the national consciousness. The fact that a man is advocating for liberation for not only slave girls, but "prostitutes" and "concubines" is also inspiringly progressive. Once again, it seems he advocates for education, which seems to further bring up your question, Sara, of the commonality of this type of thinking.

[Haena Shin]

I found this article to be quite interesting and insightful with regard to the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. While the residents of Hong Kong demand their needs to be met, I wonder what tactics or changes in their protest strategies can be made to voice what changes need to take place. As mainland China remains somewhat dependent to Hong Kong's economy, what negotiations would be beneficial to all stakeholders? As less and less residents continue to protest, will there be enough momentum for Hong Kong to successfully oppose the extradition bill from being enacted?

[Dennis O'Connell]

During Session Two, I appreciated being reminded about the longevity of the Qing Dynasty (268 years - from 1644 to 1912) and the keys to that longevity.  The Qing Dynasty made many accommodations in the ethnic, cultural, political, and economic arenas.  They were able to expand into Taiwan, parts of Russia, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and parts of the Northwest.  This expansion and accommodation came at a price, however.  There was a loss of "distinctiveness" and what it meant to be "Chinese".  Additionally, it became more and more difficult to mobilize resources across such great distances.  I would be interested to compare and contrast this to the situation of United States expansion.  Was there a loss of "distinctiveness" about what it meant to be "American"?  What were the challenges for mobilizing resources across the USA?  How has the USA met these challenges and how is this similar or different from the ways China has sought to meet these challenges?  

[Dennis O'Connell]

Students in third grade become familiar with King George III when they study the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  Using this letter from Qianlong may help students understand several aspects of global politics at that time.  Firstly, it would be important for students to understand that the American colonies were not the only problem on the plate of King George III.  England sought to be a global power and had issues to deal with all over the globe, not just in the New World.  Secondly, students might be guided to understand how China felt in many ways superior to England.  The following language in the letter could lead to further discussions (you demonstrate "respectful humility", "Our Celestial dynasty", you are too uncivilized "to acquire the rudiments of our civilization", "perpetual submission to our Throne", "nor do I overlook your excusable ignorance", your envoy "may be lacking in lucidity", etc.).  Thirdly, several discussions could focus on the following questions: Is it ok to have pride in one's nation?  Are we as a nation "better" than those of other nations?  Do people in other nations feel they are "better" than us?  So these are not simply yes or no questions, they should be followed up with Why or Why not?  

[Matthew Hurwitz]

The Economist Article on the protests in Hong Kong made me think about how I can more fully integrate news from different parts of the world into my classroom. I make my AP Government students listen to "The Daily" podcast and discuss how the politics they're listening to connect to what we're studying in class every Friday. Since a number of the recent episodes have been on Hong Kong, students have been making interesting connections in their group discussions about what we're studying in our unit (The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Enlightenment Thinkers) with the current political unrest in Hong Kong. I'm thrilled that my students are making these connections, but I've felt a little frustrated with my lack of deep knowledge of the politics in Hong Kong, and how those politics interact with mainland China and the countries around them, since I feel like I haven't been able to scaffold those particular discussions or connections as well as ones that connect to American politics. One of the things I'm hoping to learn more about in the coming weeks is the modern political dynamics between the various countries of East Asia, not just the historic political dynamics between Asia and "the West", which was the only lens through which I learned about modern China at all in school (and even that "modern" only went up to the end of the Cold War). As we learn more about the region, I'm hoping it'll allow me to structure discussions involving Government and Asia more effectively for my classes.

[Iris Marin]

My concern lies in the pollution of the water. What is being done in China to limit water pollution? I mean for a river to be so polluted that it catches on fire is alarming! Based on what we have been discussing in decreasing glaciers, what are the solutions for water access in the future? This made me think of it being an excellent opportunity for investors to own water companies because if access to water will be an issue, as we know it already is, you know people are already becoming  billionaires from holding the power to water access. Further, it leads me to think of 21st century learners and problem solvers that will be able to come up with a solution to this issue, which in turn can patent and make money or find a sponsor to be able to give these solutions to the needy. I just hope I will be able to afford water in the future.

Also, that polluted water is making it's way to us, so I have often wondered how much radiation I've intaken through the fish or simply by swimming the ocean. With time we will know.

[Cynthia Stults]

Reading the two primary sources that outlined the missive to King George III and then the treaty after the Opium Wars was incredibly insightful, but led to some questions. In the first document, the emperor was incredibly prideful about the greatness of his country and how there was no need for British people to exist there and possibly taint it with their culture. The sense one gets reading it, is that he is a kindly grandfather, giving the little grandchildren only tiny little sweets, because he's so nice, instead of the larger, more substantial meal that they are asking for. It is apparent that the emperor, having not sent his own emissaries abroad, is unaware of British military might and influence. This led me to wonder, if he had been more accepting to the requests of King George III, would he have learned more about Britain's place as a world power, and possibly have given them more trading benefits? Could the Opium Wars, and the huge losses China incurred (including Hong Kong), have been avoided. 

When one isolates themselves from the rest of the world (either physically, or in this case, culturally), it is easy to assume that your country is stronger and mightier than all the rest and that all of your cultural, religious, and political practices are the ideal. Everyone knows the old saying about assumptions.......

[Lizette Bernal]

One of the things that I found interesting from Saturday's session is the fact that there's no actual border dividing North and South Korea. The demarcation line happened after World War II rather than an actual border because there has not been a peace treaty established yet. Therefore, it is not recognized as a national boundary. Though I remember that professor Dube mentioned the vast mountains covering the land near the demarcation line (70%), which makes the split between both countries sensible. Does this mean though, that the line doesn’t appear on the maps? What exactly happens to those who are within range of the demarcation line? Is there regulations on how close one can and cannot be to the line?

[Robert Docter]

Reading this primary source was fascinating in regards to Britain sending a "...nationals to be accredited to my Celestial Court...", followed with the strong "no" from Emperor Qianlong. Dennis' comment above about bringing this perspective when talking about King George III in a U.S. History course is valuable. It also fits into discussing global relationships in the 18th/19th centuries in a World History course. The Emperor strongly rejects the proposal to have an envoy due to cultural reasons "...adopt Chinese dress..." or the restriction for Europeans in to return home at all. There is a flexing of power and strong resistance to European influence in the document. It provides a very clear counter view and argument to Britain's desire for furthering their global power and presence during that time. 

[Iris Marin]

I viewed a documentary that told the story of the Korean War. The interesting thing was that in order to beat Russia from gaining land in Korea The USA needed to setup a border right away. the president called the generals there ate the time which looked at a map and said, "Well how about the 37th parallel" and that is how the demarcation line was chosen. The Citizens where not asked nobody was consulted. The US knew they wantes seoul and the ports so they reached this agreement with Russia. and that is how The US stayed with S. Korea and Russia helped N. Korea. Many families where separated. This is the simplified version of what I remember. 

[Angela Chong]

This reminds of me of Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes shared by both Michigan and Ohio. Back in the 1970's it was very poluted and not really safe for people and therefore the wildlife and lake ecosystem was not doing well. (Lake Erie is referrenced in Dr. Suess's "The Lorax.") So there were efforts made to clean up Lake Erie and today things are very different. People swim in the lake, plants and water life have returned the the region as well. It was through a concious effort to make changes in business practicies through legistation. They do now have a Nuclear power plant that creates a "Hot Spot" in the lake, where the water is significantly warmer. The issue of what's being done in China extending to other parts of the world are a reality. 

[Kurt Hansen]

Hong Kong protets are a tough situation for China. These protests go way beyond extradition. They force China to make a decision it does not want to make. How do you allow Hong Kong to maintain its limited independence when other chinese people are forced to live under the strict rules of Chinese leadership? China needs Hong Kong to boost its economic standing, but cannot abide it's protests. We talked in class about Manchuria easily joining China's rule because it had been ruled without Democratic rights. Hong Kong, tasting that Democratic freedom for the decades it existed has no desire to have those rights curtailed by China's current leadership. Perhaps a compromise would be similar to Taiwan should be in the works. "Yes, it's ours, independent...yet not"

[Author]

Posts