Session 8 - August 8, Lisa Tran, CSU Fullerton

[Deanna Wiist]

I echo many of your sentiments. Before today I was not familiar with the fact that many of the men writing about women’s rights were actually using women as a metaphors for China. That was news to me. 

[Diana Corey]

The way Professor Tran picked out quotes from the various texts and projected them with a question was really engaging. It really got me thinking about the text, the historical, political, and social context, and got me processing my own thoughts and feelings. I would like to use this exercise in my classes for comprehension and for getting students thinking about and relating to what they are learning about Chinese culture through what they are reading. Excellent lecture!

[Anthony Pollard]

     Professor Lisa Tran provided a plethora of information about a history of women writers. An earlier lecture exposed there were at least 125 biographies written about women. 

     For the classroom, we can definitely expose to students the comparison and contrast between the terms: woman and gender.

     During the timeframe after the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), Professor Tran exposed women's writing that was not readily know by others, for example, He Zhen. So, further research may uncover other women's voices pertaining to the subject of gender and the woman. 

     Professor Tran's lecture and our discussion exposed another perspective of how these terms "gender" and "woman", were characterised and believed. The type of govenmental system in place during the time these women wrote their arguments, evidently had an affect on the ideologies of the societies influenced by them, during those times. Students can make comparisons between what was happening in those places compared to what was happening here in the United States.

[Frederic Vial]

It was suggested that communism and its utopian promises never had the opportunity to flourish because it was isolated within a capitalistic world. I find this suggestion historically inaccurate, one that is often justified via a revisionist historians' construct. The Cold War, which was referenced during lecture, existed during a time of geopolitical bipolairty, whereby two clearcut super powers - the United States and the Soviet Union - controlled the global ideological landscape.  

The suggestion that communist states were isolated because of the world's capitalistic inclinations is simply unfounded. The fact the Soviet Union, China, the Eastern Block and other communist states did not allow its citizens to travel freely throughout the world is a clear example of communism's self-imposed isolationist policies, requirements and/or tendencies. During the Cold War, a clear line in the sand was drawn. Communist countries existed within their own self-imposed ideological and isolationist confines. Within these confines, communist ideoleogy was allowed to flourish where trade and support between communist states readily occurred. Despite the lack of justification for the Vietnam War, the reasons for entering the war were to stop the "domino-effect" occurring, whereby communist countries were, essentially, taking over their neighbors and forcing their ideological systems on their populace, welcomed or not. Communism wasn't some fringe ideology, isolated to one country or area of the world. It was an ideology that occupied a significant part of every hemisphere at the time of the Cold War.  

Therefore, I find this rhetoric troubling for a mulitude of reasons, notwithstanding the fact that a growing majority of young millenials find "socialism" as a plausible alternative to capitalism. Since socialism is often,  or can be, a precursor for communism, it's important to note certain historical facts surrounding its ideology and history.

The reason communism has routinely failed is because it is socially, politically and economically flawed since it does not account for mankind's ingrained biological need to survive on a variety of levels.  

Socially, it attempts to collectivize the individual in the name of a unified and fair - everyone gets a piece of the pie - society. In the 1930s prior to WWII, Stalin attempted to collectivize Ukranian farmers. When they refused, he murdered 10 million farmers. George Orwell's Animal Farm, written in 1947 right after WWII and when the Soviet Union was still considered an ally, is a genious, crystal ball-like example of communism, foreshadowing its social ills. The idea of collectivizing society by redistributing its "wealth" in the name of hope and unity is something relative to our current political climate. The calcuated destruction of the individual - his/her thought, speech, creativity - in the name of "unity" by silencing that individual's opinion and/or influence is how it begins. If one does not toe the party line, one is labeled and, then, his/her beliefs nullified, silenced, erased. And so, from a social perspective, for communism to survive it must contradict ideas such as freedom of speech, thought, and even the press (which is ironic since the same media that promotes it, does not know it's cutting off its own nose to spite its face). It promises what it has no intention of delivering, since to deliver it would contradict every human impulse and biological need of which familial honor, trust, love, spirituality and survival is an integral part of the species since the beginning of time. This violates natural law, whether one chooses to define such law from the scientific or religious point of view. Furthermore, it explains why communism seeks to eradicate the family and all forms of organized religion and/or spirituality unless it is directed exclusively towards or controlled by "the party."  

From the political standpoint, it wreaks of hypocrisy. The idea that "self-interest" will not exist contradicts every natural human impulse embedded in our very biology - the survival of the fittest. It claims to collectivize, unify society by ridding itself of the greedy individual - the evil chief operational agent of capitalism - by replacing him/her with other greedy individuals. It does not admit to simply shifting the capital/power to a different group, a group that then centralizes power in such a way to create a greater rich and poor divide. Lastly, communism does not admit to more mass murder than any other signal ideology within the last 100 years. After a recent visit to the Museum of Tolerance, I was shocked to discover there was not a single section on communism and its violation of human rights.  

From the economic standpoint, it saps all innovation, ambition and incentive. It is unrealistic in its claims. Try working extra hard for the "good of the state" when your comrade keeps calling in sick or puts half the effort you've been routinely putting forth in your work day in and day out. China's current economic model is essentially state run capitalism. Hong Kong, arguably the world's most capitalistic city has been the model for China's economy since taking it over from the British for years. China, from the political standpoint, has traditionally regarded capitalism as an evil entity because of its socially progressive attributes. It's kept its hardline communist tradition, from the political standpoint, while quietly reeping the economic benefits of capitalism. It refuses to allow for the free exchange of ideas, freedom of the press, concepts largely associated with capitalistic countries, yet uses capitalism's economic prosperity to grow its sphere of influence in the world arena.

I am not suggesting capitalism does not have its own set of social ills and issues. In fact, we have socialism in the United States more extensively than people think. FDR's slew of programs which gave us Social Security are all clear-cut examples of socialism. However, no single ideology throughout history has lifted people out of poverty more than capitalism. Despite the "evils" promoted in the free press, it remains the only ideology that allows for a free exchange of ideas, thought, press, speech - the promotion of the inalienable rights we hold dear. It is an evolving system that requires more progress in the social arena, no doubt.  And, because of the freedoms it affords, offers a brighter future than other ideologies claiming to give more could ever conjure.             

[Xiaowei Hunt]

My response is based on the Primary Source Readings.pdf. Another surprise! Even though I had lived in China for 36 years before I moved to the United States, I have never heard of or read anything by He Zhen until today. After Professor Tran's detailed analysis of He Zhen's communist idea and my reading of the Primary Source Readings.pdf, I was totally at awe for the young and brave He Zhen. The message she wrote for the women at that time was simple, inspiring, provoking and uplifting. I can't help quoting her words here "If every single woman understands nothing is more evil than money, and they all unite together to cooperate with men to utterly overthrow the rich and powerful and then abolish money, then absolutely nothing will be allowed for individuals to own privately. Everything from foods to clothes and tools will be put in a place where people---men and women alike, as long as they perform a little labor, can take however much of whatever they want just like taking water from the ocean. This is called communism.” I would have been knocked awake to her call if I had lived at her time! 

 

Question: How come Mao Zedong and other early Chinese communist party members not put or recommend He Zhen’s essay as selected reading in k-12 Chinese language textbook?

 

[Celeste Modster]

Women and Gender in China’s Long Twentieth Century

WOMEN’S HISTORY IN CHINA

Professor Lisa Tran

I enjoyed Professor Tran’s lecture today. There was so much information to be covered but she engaged us in conversation with thoughtful questioning.  

As a Historian, Professor Tran expressed the importance of plugging in the contribution of women into history to make it more complete. The ntroduction of Qui Jin and her work in Chinese History provided an example of doing so. I was intreged by Qui Jin, a Revolutionary Martyr who was written about as the first feminist, one who challenged Confusianism. She believed that Confusianism did not work and should be done away with. Qui Jin challenged woman to step up, become educated and take civic action so as not to have to rely on men who she believed were failing. Her advice was that we, women must revitalize ourselves. Our discussions did not lead to a resolution on the subject of the perfect world nor did Qui Jin’s but the challenge and conversation was and is relevant and important. She left us with this important thought:

“Always question why things are the way that they are. That is what scholars do.” 

 I will definitely share with my students!

 

[Joy Chao]

Hi Zoey, I was also thinking about what you mentioned in your last paragraph. When we emphasize something so much, it clearly signals that it’s a focus or an issue. I remember once watching Shark Tank and this girl trying to sell her new intention called “Girls can code” and she explained why her toy is needed for girls out there “because coding has always the guys’ thing.” I don’t know if such trick is attracting more attention from the girls or doing the exact opposite. When we keep on saying “equal pay,” that means pays are still not equal; but by not saying it it doesn’t make the problem go away. You asked a very good question at the end and I wish we could get Prof. Tran’s insight on this one.

[Jennifer Chang]

Hi Zoey, 

I really enjoyed reading your reflections on Professor Tran's lecture today! While my middle schoolers do not cover this particular topic, I agree that I can use some aspects with my elementary students. I really liked the question you posed for your students "Why were men considered hunter gatherers...etc" These are really great introductions to discussions about gender roles in the past. I look forward to starting these conversations in my class! 

[Jennifer Chang]

These readings would be a great primary source for students to understand how and why people were convinced to take the side of Communism, as well as go over how to make persuasive arguments in writing. He Zhen argued that Confucianism was at fault for poor treatment of women, and even quoted Ban Zhao’s teachings as “poison that filled the world”. She gave several arguments, and followed them up with multiple points from readings, examples, laws. She even had a similar theme throughout her argument - “Everyone needs to eat”, and referred back to this several times in her writing. 

I also enjoyed Professor Tran’s teaching style today as well. She focused on primary sources, and presented quotes from each of these sources to the class. She had the class analyze the quotes, and asked very directed questions about each of these quotes. I felt that the discussions that we had today really helped me understand the ideals of the revolutionaries and feminists at the time.

[Jonathan Tam]

The readings articulated a really interesting point, which is the fact that the work of Qiu Jin and He Zhen far exceeded their lifetimes. Something that I found online as I was reading about Qiu Jin is the fact that before she was executed, she left behind a poem saying: ""Autumn wind, autumn rain – they make one die of sorrow," to lament the failed revolution that she would never see take place." Something that the readings touched on was the fact that many of their works were reproduced in the cultural revolution and provided a strong platform for feminism throughout the late 20th century. A strategy that Professor Tran modeled really well was providing exerpts from each of their works - which I think can be great before providing any context behind Qiu Jin or He Zhen. It will really let students try to debate when these authors lived and the conditions they lived in as well. Where many would argue that they were alive during the cultural revolution, it might be a great suprise to students to realize they were around during the turn of the 19th century and that the foundations and seeds of communism were around as early as then in China.

[Xiaowei Hunt]

Professor Tran’s lecture and discussion today brought to my mind three feminists in the early 20^thcentury in China: Qiu Jin, He Zhen and Ding Ling.

I would like to talk about what they have to do with my Chinese classes:

For Chinese Level 1 class, I can introduce their name, their birthday and their family, including their parents, children or husband. For Chinese Level 2 students, I can talk about what these three famous women liked to do (writing), countries they traveled to and why. For my Level 3 and AP Chinese students, I can show them movie of

Qiu Jin at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7GjmO_SwMand ask them to describe the movie and explain its significance. 

[Nelson Ta]

It was fascinating to see the anarchist and feminist ideas present in China during the early 1900s since it's a stark contrast to what I normally think about in terms of free speech in China. He Zhen presents many ideas that are present in today's thinking and philosophy. Much of the back and forth in the class consisted of trying to understand what He Zhen wanted after the dismantling of the current Confucius system. From what I understand, she is an anarchist and her belief system is built on tearing down the constructs and mores that exist with the capitalist realm and mindset. There is much after that is complete. Planning a structure after would be paradoxical. I would be interested in comparing He Zhen with other popular feminist thinkers in my classroom. I think students would be highly curious about various women's rights movements around the world.

[Frederic Vial]

I'm always searching for primary source articles.  My students often compare primary and secondary sources.  A variety of graphic organizers such as Venn Diagrams, Spoke Diagrams, Graphs, Tables, Charts are used to help students visually categorize the differences.  This primary source is something my students can definitely use as part of a lesson plan.

[Amy Chen]

I like your idea of using excerpts from the text to give students topics to debate on. Also, good point that communist ideas existed in China long before the cultural revolution.

[Scott Craig]

I agree that the primary source readings would be great to share in social studies. I am rereading these sources to find excerpts that I can use in my class to help my students. 

[Author]

Posts