session 5 (10/5) readings

[Anonymous]

Interestingly, it seems clear that Sun Yat-sen attributed the idea of revolution to Confucius, and indicated that revolutionary incidents had repeatedly occurred throughout Chinese history, but lacked fruition. He intended to complete what had yet been incomplete. Sun Yat-sen laid out a plan for Kemin/revolution that began with the destruction of the 'Manchu despotism', corruption, and 'vicious customs.' He believed it would be necessary for the revolutionary government to rule militarily until the 'political tutelage' was complete, districts were self-governing and a president had been elected by the people. He envisioned three years for a transition, with a provisional constitution, and then three more years for the Republican, Five Power Constitutional government. He also wanted to install Three Principles of the People. He formed three principles designed to outline his revolution: Nationalism, Democracy, and Livelihood. "All through my revolutionary career I have held the view that China must be made a republic." His views emanated from Chinese traditional history, from European and American influence, and from his own, original ideas.

[Anonymous]

Well, Americans still love their money! I'm surprised that he never heard anyone say,"The love of money is the root of all evil" while he was visiting here, though. We still meticulously account for our time, especially at work. People still ridicule the superstitions of others, and I agree with the silliness of those he encountered. My generation straddled the fence between women being independent and going to college, and staying at home and raising children in a clean, neat home; taking the children to church every Sunday. Our society has changed a lot since his writing, and the current generation, which encompasses my children. We DO have a piano! We are STILL happily playing and singing together around it! Wow. Xu Zhenkeng said that "The American family is indeed the happiest and has the most enjoyment." I can attest that my family is happy and enjoying life, while also working hard to attain a good living, but not riches. I agree with his assessment that the U.S. is still a paradise for women and children. I was raised with the belief that children are a gift from God, and to love, teach, and cherish them. I have taught my children to be self-reliant and independent. I did not mean for my assessment of this article to be so personal, I was just surprised that so many things he said are still true, or were when I was growing up and raising my family. There were several other things that rang true, about letting children learn from their mistakes and teaching them everything possible, but the idea I will end with is this; "America's true republican spirit can be seen in it's universities." I know this is true, because I am writing this for a class at a university, despite the fact that I am a woman who came from a poor family, who chose to raise her children before entering grad school. I am very grateful for the opportunities I have because of the American universities. He was spot-on, in that regard.

[Anonymous]

The article stated that, "In a few months, the peasants have accomplished what Dr. Sun Yat-sen wanted, but failed, to accomplish in the forty years he devoted to the national revolution." The peasant association/revolution may have struck terror into the hearts of the gentry and ruling class, but from what I see, they hardly accomplished what Dr. Sun Yat-sen set out to accomplish. It was helpful to have first read the other article outlining his Principles of Revolution. His desire was for republican reconstruction, not just, "...an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." The peasant associations wished to remove the authority of the landlords, held for thousands of years. Sun Yat-sen wanted more: to put a government in place that separated the powers into legislative, judicial, executive, examination, and censor Yuan, or boards. Mao Zedong and Sun Yat-sen were both agreed that the beginning of a revolution required destruction. The gentry thought that this was terrible, and the peasants thought this was fine.

[Anonymous]

I've always wondered at who this Sun Yatsen character was, and whether or not he was more closely aligned in his principles with Mao Zhe Dong or Chiang Kai Sheck; as someone with familial ties to the struggle of the Chinese Civil War that brought my ancestors to Taiwan, it's oddly comforting that the latter was a more faithful successor. That aside, Sun has thoughtfully considered the operational management of China, and I particularly enjoyed the section titled "Principle of Democracy" for a number of reasons.

1) He listed instances in Chinese history where rulers did away with hereditary successor-ship and actively chose their scions, something I've always wondered if it did happen or not in history.

2) His 3 reasons reflect an understanding of corrupting power, and a government that values the input of its citizens combined with a more widely dispersed power base is a government less likely to oppress and deal with internal authoritative struggles. One thing I will say I was confused and will be interested in hearing a clarification of, is "how does Sun Yatsen intend to operate a country run on democracy with a state-owned economy?" Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but is there a country that is like that, and how are they fairing?

3) Instead of 3 branches of power, he devised a 5 branch system that includes an Examination and Censoring branch. Question: What are the job descriptions of these two branches and how would they further balance the powers of a government?

In his section titled "Fundamentals of Revolution", he sketches out a plan to restructure China's governmental operations and powers in a relatively short amount of time and in a rather simplistic fashion. Call me skeptical, but even this plan seems a bit romantic for my taste; it counts on every one of his loyalists to share his exact principles without fail. If in the first stage a military leader becomes disgruntled in his troops being disbanded, a power struggle may arise. In the second stage should the purging of corruption become a fanatic witch hunt, many potentially promising governmental leaders may be disposed of, also for the sake of power and benefit. In the last stage which most reflects a nation like the US, then we see a bit of stability and greater degree of responsible accountability. Nevertheless, to corral every independent district to cooperate when the leaders are likely individuals who grew up under a monarchy, fought through a revolution, and stepped on former allies to rise politically, is an endeavor that seems to be very much so fraught with the kind of peril that spells collapse and anarchy.

I paint a dark picture, but I am also very curious how this would have all turned out had he been given the opportunity to reconstruct China. It's a shame he never got to give his idea a shot.

[Anonymous]

I'm a bit confused. I recall Samuel Yamashita telling us yesterday that the U.S. and China were allies, but then China began to align with Russia, which left the U.S. scrambling to become allies with Japan. This second speech leaves me with the feeling that China wanted nothing but peace and security for themselves and the world. This confusion will most likely be cleared up in subsequent readings or lectures. The first speech seems to call on the spirit of the people to not give up or give in to the Japanese, and to keep fighting to drive them out, and that 'other just nations' will surely sympathize with China and give her their 'cooperation.' He quoted Dr. Sun in order to encourage them to fight. "We do not oppress the weak, and we do not bow before tyranny." The second speech was given after Japan's surrender. I don't know the history very well, but it sounds as though he was making excuses as to why during the last fifty years they had regained sovereign rights and reestablished administration in the n.e.provinces, Taiwan, and Pescadores Islands. Then, turned around and effusively explained that now they would generously give them their independence, specifically Mongolia and Tibet. This had been the work of the 'Beijing government', but now the 'national government' wanted to give aid to to all ethnic groups who wish to be independent, and can self-govern. The last confusing thing I read was about the unfinished phase of the principle of nationalism. He expressed his hope that this would occur and that China's allies would 'understand.' When I hear that type of a phrase, it makes me think that something is occurring that someone else won't like, but the party taking the action hopes the other party will just 'understand.' So, a positive for one, but a negative for the other.

[Anonymous]

Interesting notes after the loss of China by Secretary Acheson. He point out that the only way to save China from the Communists would have been to send ground troops into China "in behalf of a Government which has lost the confidence of its own troops and its own people." This brings to mind future engagements by the U.S. in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be interesting to note why Vietnam was given that benefit but China was denied. Perhaps its linked to geography, it would seem more manageable to militarize a country of Vietnam's size than one as big as China.

[Anonymous]

As I was reading this piece by Xu Zhengkeng, I couldn't help but be reminded of the important voice that foreigners provide in their writings and observations about our people and society. As Americans, I feel that the foreign voice provide us with an opportunity for reflection about our society, but it also helps reveal much about the writer, their values and inherently share about the type of society they themselves are from. I was reminded of the importance of the writings by Alexis de Tocqueville in explaining to Europeans about the American concept of democracy, and similar observations as Zhengkeng on equality and individualism. As Zhengkeng explained about many of America's traditions and values, such as their admiration for material wealth and time, I couldn't help but agree with some of his observations. I felt that the observations that Zhengkeng made then still ring true today, such as the his explanation that "Americans cherish time because of their worship money" and even his observation that when "friends socialize there is a commercial motive." Sometimes people fail to acknowledge or recognize that such behaviors exist in a society until someone in the "outside" makes those observations for us. I also couldn't help but feel that these served as more than just observations for Chinese people to understand Americans and their society, but to also serve as a critique to our values as a society. This was especially apparent to me when he compared how Chinese people greet compared to Americans. However, there were some commendations that were made, such as his praise of American university professors "who are able to devote their whole lives to scholarship," he claims even when their "salaries are the lowest of any occupation." He proclaims that America's university professors are the "foundation on which [our] country stands and the source of its power and prosperity." Zhengkeng provides other examples that could potentially serve as accolades to America's educational system and values, such as his observation that American "society thinks children important" by the example of the Child Welfare Department which "intervene with any family that mistreats children or takes insufficient care of them" and American's method of bringing up children such as their emphasis on the "moral, intellectual, and physical" development of children. I found his observation of America's value in education revealed more about Zhengkeng than about our society, and perhaps his own wish and desire for his own society to place such a high value on education.

[Anonymous]

This article by Eastman tackles an issue that is surely controversial. I was not familiar with the intellectual war of words between those who blame the U.S. and those who blame the Nationalist government for the "loss" of mainland China. The article credits a new source for its information, which was hidden in plain sight, the speeches of Chiang Kai-shek. By using speeches delivered in 1948 and 1949, Eastman gets an unvarnished and honest viewpoint from the leaders of said loss. Considering the source, Chiang himself, the conclusions are hard to dispute. According to Chiang and others from the period, the primary reason for the loss of mainland China was due to incompetence from the Goumindang leadership. Chiang's analysis of U.S. involvement matches that found in the "white paper," notably that the U.S. provided enough materiel to win the war, which was then misappropriated, lost, or sold by corrupt officials. This line of argument is apparently unwelcome in Taiwan, where it's popular with historians to lay the blame squarely on the U.S. Research like this make those argument difficult to sustain, especially given the source, contemporary speeches from Chiang Kai-shek. Given the relevance of the topic to contemporary Sino-Taiwan relations, a discussion of it would be welcome.

[Anonymous]

Xu Zhengkeng’s observations about Americans is very fascinating to me, as a foreigner looking into American culture and beliefs. Yes, Americans love money, and spend most of their time focused on making money, as he suggests, but so does every other person! (It’s funny that a Chinese-born friend of mine who is now a American citizen once remarked that life in America is so busy! Americans are always working!) Earning a living in the US can be very complicated, but for the most part, American people work so they can support their leisurely life! On a side note, China today loves money just as much, if not more! There is a large amount of Chinese investments in foreign businesses. Additionally, in terms of money making and capitalism, the Chinese owned-businesses in the State sare the only ones that remain open on holidays in America! It’s an opportunity to make money, so business comes before family. This is an unsaid rule, coming from a person raised by Chinese parents.

Xu Zhengkeng noticed that Americans foster a sprit of independence, as demonstrated in how children are reared. This definitely is in contrast to Chinese thinking of the community, at least in the 1920s. I can not say there is as much cultural thought about community in China anymore. It has become very individualistic, especially considering the socio-cultural concept of the one-child policy. Since that time, I have noticed so many adults hovering one single child. That child does not know what it is like to share with siblings. Parents and grandparents dote on the child, promoting an individualistic nature, supporting a me-culture.
edited by cgao on 10/6/2015

[Anonymous]

The Communist Party was one of discipline and organization. Liu Shaoqi expresses discipline in several aspects including the discipline to express ones opinion. Interestingly Shaoqi explains that higher ranking officials in the party should not be afraid to express their opinions even though others may not agree. He goes further in saying that to be disciplined in expressing opinion is just as important as being disciplined to accept that ones opinion may not always be the opinion of the rest of the party. Higher ranking officials should be disciplined to not let power go to their head and that decisions should be made democratically. Along with discipline organization is also a key component to the party and their goals. The organization of the party from higher ranking officials to the workers needs to be carefully planned. The execution of plans should be carried out without "negligence or recklessness." He is basically saying to be disciplined is to be organized and only when the party is both can they carry out fully their goals for the country.

[Anonymous]

According to Sun Yatsen ideas of revolution are not new to China. He begins by stating that revolution was first used by Confucius. Sun Yatsen speaks of the Chinese as having an independent spirit and a promotion of self-development. He hopes to promote independence and democracy through revolution. Much like Liu Shaoqi, Sun Yatsen hopes to achieve his desired government through revolution. Both spoke of organization as a key component to achieving their goals. While the goals may have been different they both agree that a democratic system within the party are essential for achieving the end result.

[Anonymous]

Several of this week’s readings including Sun Yat-sen’s “Fundamentals of Reconstruction” and Xu Zhengkeng’s “Things About America and Americas” are remarkably well versed and perhaps convey a sense of dejà vu. For Xu Zhengkeng, much of his words reflect those of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and in some part, Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecoer’s essay, “What is an American”, while Sun Yat-sen’s invokes our two of our foundational documents: The Declaraction of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution. It’s unclear how much of Xu Zhengkeng and Sun Yat-sen’s words were inspired by foreign documents, but it is clear that the notion of being an American – identity, democracy, and economy—influenced both men’s work. For Sun Yat-sen, his proclamation for reconstruction is reminiscent of our own nation’s origins. Of the three principles, the principle of democracy most mirror the words in the United State’s Declaration of Independence, though the other two – nationalism and livelihood – echo sentiments also found in our founding documents. While not exact, the “Principle of Nationalism” seem to call to attention the need for a divided China to garner recognition not as “independence in the family”, but as it “…[was] inherited from [our] remote forefathers” paralleling the call of Patrick Henry at the Virginia Convention to join as one unified nation, not separate colonies against a tyrannical ruler – King George II. Similarly, Sun Yat-Sen ask the Chinese people to rise – independent of their own tyrannical rule – Qing dynasty. Furthermore, Sun Yat-sen and Xu Zhengkeng convey a strong urgency for economic solvency – though the means vary by each man. Perhaps in creating a revolution, all men of power must look to those who have succeed in the past to ensure their own success. Regardless, reading these texts bring to light the principles that connect China and the United States.
edited by cgao on 10/6/2015

[Anonymous]

Like many in the class, I was fascinated by Xu Zhengkeng's "The Thing About Americans". Aside from the constants over a love of money and efficiency, what struck me most was how easily this essay could have been from the modern era but with the cultures reversed. It seems Americans today are fascinated with the speed and efficiency of Asian cultures, particularly the Japanese. Politicians easily get voters riled up by comparing our production means with those of China, and even education reform is shaped by a comparison of our results versus our Asian counterparts. Furthermore, I found the historical context of Xu Zhengkeng's study important. He paints the US as a highly advanced and wealth-obsessed society, which the early 1920's undoubtedly was. However it was also a time of an increasingly widening gap between social classes, a point which he neglects to mention. After the discussion in class yesterday, this seems an intentional move, as the essay was meant to stir nationalistic feeling and push modernization in China.

On a completely separate note, I appreciated the inclusion of the adapted text of Sun Yat Sen's Fundamentals in this week's readings. While I vaguely remember reading it in college, the discussion in yesterday's class helped me make sense of it. The version we used (complete with biographical information and historical context) ready to use in high school classrooms. Well, for my AP course at least (my standard World History kids might need further modifications to tackle it). Regardless, the inclusion of classroom ready materials is much appreciated!

[Anonymous]

Generally I had an idea about Sun Yat-Sen’s ideas of Democracy, Nationalism, and Livelihood, however I was under the impression that his ideals focused much more on the people of China and their rights as opposed to being focused on fixing the government. I guess this reading was more of an inside out fix on government in order to solve the issues and organization of leadership. I was surprised that the only mention of people’s rights was in the final paragraph.

Does Sun Yat-Sen have any other pieces of writing that focus on democracy, nationalism, and livelihood, in reference to the people and their rights, rather than solely the government?
edited by skroop on 10/7/2015

[Anonymous]

One of the articles that interested me the most was Xu Zhengkeng's "Things About America and Americans" as we mentioned in class is always interesting to know how other people perceive you and even more interesting when that perception has not change after a century. I’ve have lived in different countries and I remember hearing similar opinions about Americans delirium for money, we’re portrayed as cold and money hungry, people who work endless hours to just accumulate a fortune. There is also this idea of Americans living in paradise with amazing Victorian houses and brand new luxury cars. All this of course, we owe it to Hollywood and the media.
One opinion that I do share with the writer is the disapproval of our societies’ appreciation for college professors and their salaries. We have great people dedicating their lives to education and what they (we) get in return moneywise is absurd. An educator is as important as a doctor or a lawyer and should be recompensed in the same manner.

[Author]

Posts