teaching about the recent past

[Anonymous]

I think that the situation right now in this country could be viewed as pretty dark also. Fortunately, it is out of the deepest darkness that there is the potential to be birthed the greatest light. The pendalum swings and eventually all things come into balance. Peace within/peace without.

[Anonymous]

I think history books should make you love humanity. After learning about the twists and turns of every culture trying to be birthed into its higher vision one can have greater compassion for all that people go through to get it right.

Unfortunately, strong nationalism tends many times to divide people - "my nation/culture is better than yours". We need to develop an appreciation for the diversity of cultures thoroughout the world. That is the positive aspect of nationalism.

[Anonymous]

I have been reviewing the CD, The National Clearinghouse For U.S.-Japan Studies. It is a treasure chest of excellent resources for teaching about Japan. I found a lesson plan for using selections from Sei Shonagon's The Pillow Book. The lesson plan is easy to follow and offers multiple activities that can be adapted to many different academic levels. There are numerous links to interesting websites to provide background information for both teachers and students. The Japan Digest articles contain many valuable teaching topics. One article that I particularly thought was interesting was, Japan in the U.S. Press: Bias and Stereotypes. It analyzes the ways that stereotypes about the Japanese have been/continue to be perpetuated in the media of the U.S. The article also points out that some of these stereotypes are encouraged by the Japanese themselves. The most valuable portion of the articles are the analysis/critical thinking questions for discussion at the end of the article. These questions are so well written that you could ask students to consider them again and again with different cultures. For example, one of the discussion questions asks students if samurai images are "misappropriated". Well, this is a question that could be asked about articles on China, Islam, or Africa.

[Anonymous]

I reviewed a Chinese culture unit entitled, China: a Cultural Heritage. It is put together by Marjorie Norman and Peter Evans for the Jackdaws Portfolio series. Primary source documents and artifacts are utilized to teach students about Chinese history. This unit could be used in many different ways ( introduction, selected lessons from the unit, deep learning, and conclusion). It also could be utilized with the whole class or in workstations (small groups or pairs). I think that if it were utilized in a workstation situation, each small group could complete 2-3 primary source document/artifact analyses in a class period. There is a vocabulary list and definitions of words that students will encounter within the primary source documents at the beginning of the study guide for this unit. Accompanying the vocabulary is an analogy exercise to deepen the meaning of the vocabulary words.

What makes this unit particularly student-user-friendly is that it provides students with the "big picture" then teaches them to look at the details. For example, (primary sources are on "Broadsheets") Broadsheet 3 discusses Chinese literature. Students read this which provides a short historical background as well as examples from the Book of Songs(translated by Arthur Waley),On the Mountain(Translated by David Hawkes), and Proclamation to the Crocodile(translated by Glen W. Baxter). The activity that the students complete is an analysis of a section of Proclamation to the Crocodile. Students are guided with specific critical thinking questions.

There are pictures of Chinese artifacts. There is a book that explains the significance of the artifacts and provides activities for students to complete. These types of exercises are very important to show students that the "things" of the past give us important clues to the life, thoughts, and cultures of the past.

In addition to activities for students to complete, there are numerous suggestions for extending the Chinese cultural unit. I think the Amy Tan Chinese American extension activity looks interesting. What the teacher would do is print out a selection from one of her works (or read a selection to the class) and have the students pick out both the Chinese customs and traditions that are reflected and not reflected in her work.

[Anonymous]

Thank you very much for your insightful post on the lack of balance between materialism and ethical goals in China. I agree with your statement that we do to certain extent also worship financial success and the almighty dollar here in the US. However, your comment that the strong bedrock of religious freedom and faith in our country mitigates our obsession with material goals in a way that is not possible in China is both interesting and on-point. We do have big hearts here in the US. The Fox network through the popular television show "American Idol" recently raised over 70 million dollars from its viewing audience to aid indigent and poverty-stricken children and their families in both Africa and the US. The United States was also one of the largest, if not the largest, global contributor to the Tsunami relief efforts with much of that funding coming from private sources.

Is China able to raise funds for humanitarian relief with such ease? How does the Chinese government dissuade its populace from participating in religious activities? Does this negative attitude towards religion on the part of the Chinese government have an equally negative impact on the nation's attitude towards those less fortunate?

[Anonymous]

Several posts in this thread have dealt with the Yasukuni Shrine, a memorial to Japanese war dead that is seen by many, especially those in other Asian countries, as a symbolic glorification of Japanese militarism. But if Yasukuni can be seen as a symbol of Japanese aggression, then Hiroshima, and its Peace Park, surely can be seen as a symbol of Japanese victimization by a ruthless military power, the only one, to date, to have used nuclear weapons, twice, against an unsuspecting, unprepared civilian population. That the military power is, of course, us, the US, makes it all the more remarkable that an American, albeit a peace activist, has been appointed director of the Hiroshima Peace Park, as reported in the Los Angeles Times article of June 11, 2007 by Bruce Wallace, "Dispatch from Hiroshima: New peace message, via an American."

This fact, in itself, is astonishing, as if the Pearl Harbor Memorial in Honolulu were to be turned over to the directorship of a Japanese national (albeit a peace activist) or the Museum of Tolerance to the guidance of a German national (albeit a peace activist). And yet that is precisely what the mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, decided to do. The rationale for this decision, Wallace writes, is Akiba's desire to "turn Hiroshima's misfortune as the original victim of nuclear war into more than just a sentimental force for peace." What revealing word choices Wallace makes, especially the word "misfortune," as if poor Hiroshima just had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather like being hit by a meteor, nobody's fault, really, just bad timing. The word "sentimental" is also problematic, especially for those of us who have read (and taught) John Hersey's Hiroshima, with its sobering, often horrifying, documentation of six survivors' accounts of just how "sentimental" it was to live through the "misfortune" of a nuclear attack. Curiously enough, this same kind of blame-the-victim approach is echoed in the words of peace activist Steven Leeper, now charged with publicizing Hiroshima's "sentimental" memorial to its "misfortune." "There is a view among some," Leeper is quoted as saying, "that Hiroshima's message is all emotion and lacks substance." How unsettling to hear one of the major atrocities of the Second World War referred to in the language of American advertising, as if stalwart peace activist Leeper were a pitchman telling Hiroshima it has to ramp up its "message." Imagine the international outcry that would greet a similar statement made by a German about the Auschwitz Memorial. And as for lacking "substance," Wallace begins his article by reminding readers that one has only to dig three feet beneath the topsoil of the Hiroshima Peace Park to unearth bones of the victims of America's nuclear attack. If the radioactive remains of the first victims of the Atomic Age are not "substance," then one wonders what Leeper is talking about.

As the article continues, it becomes clear that Leeper's intentions are honorable. He wants to use the Peace Park as a symbol of and force for the transition of the world from a "war culture" to a "peace culture," a noble idealistic vision. But the focus of reporter Wallace, and peace activist Leeper, comes back again and again to Japan's role in starting the war and the belief, especially on the part of certain Korean and Chinese nationals, that the Japanese are somehow "getting away with looking like they were the only victims." That the Japanese were obviously not the only victims of the Second World War does not in any way diminish the stark reality that the bombing of Hiroshima was a wartime atrocity, an idea that is conspicuously absent from this article, as well as any mention, however brief, of the culpability of US militarism and the US "war culture" for the horror of Hiroshima and continuing warfare in contemporary Asia and elsewhere. Peace activist Leeper does not even touch that hot potato, let alone pick it up. The Hiroshima debate is, of course, controversial and one that I would like to open in a separate thread because of its complex and crucial significance for past, present and future American international policy and political identity. But this article about the Hiroshima Peace Park's new director raises another, disturbing question, at least for me. If nations start unprovoked wars, as Japan did, do they then "deserve" whatever happens to them, including, but not limited to, nuclear attack? I do not know the answer to this question. But if it is "yes," as this article seems to imply, then all citizens of the US, with its unprovoked invasion of Iraq, have grounds for serious reflection and concern.

Leigh Clark
Monroe High School

[Anonymous]

One of the great things about this seminar has been the wonderful books we have been given, all for free, as if it's our birthday. Kwangju Diary, with its ominous subtitle, Beyond Death, Beyond the Darkness of the Age, came in shrink-wrapped cellophane, on its cover a picture of three young South Koreans marching under arrest with their hands up while a soldier stands by, automatic rifle held raised and ready for firing. I assumed that the book was some kind of impassioned tirade against the US-supported military dictatorships that have run South Korea, our friendly "democratic" client state, since the stalemate that concluded the Korean War. I did not get around to reading it until I had to take my car in for servicing and brought the book along to have something to read. They spent over three hours fooling around with my car at the dealership, but they had to call me more than once to get my attention away from the book and pay my bill. I drove home and finished the book that same day.

Kwangju is impassioned all right, but it is far more horrifying than any merely verbal polemic could ever be. What the book offers us is an immediately-after-the-facts journalistic account of the uprisings by university students and industrial workers beginning 14 May 1980 in Kwangju, the capital city of South Cholla Province, the agricultural hinterland of South Korea. The country had been in turmoil for a year before the uprisings in Kwangju, beginning with a strike by young women textile workers in 1979 at YH Trading Company east of Seoul. The strike was crushed by General Park Chung Hee. One woman was killed and many were savagely beaten. In the course of an argument in a safe-house meeting with Kim Chae-gyu, head of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (the KCIA), General Park was killed when Kim drew a pistol and shot him at point-blank range. The political chaos that followed Park's assassination led to the uprisings at Kwangju, which were met with savage barbarity by troops under the command of new dictator Chun Doo Hwan. Students were beaten and killed. A woman had her breasts flayed by bayonets. Older Koreans who tried to offer shelter in their apartments to students fleeing for their lives were also beaten and killed.

Kwangju Diary was written by Lee Jai-eui, a participant in and eyewitness to the uprisings and their unspeakably bloody aftermath. The book, first published in 1985, was originally attributed to the older Korean novelist Hwang Sog-yong in an attempt to shield from political persecution the young man who had actually written it.

Reading Kwangju Diary is a harrowing experience, made even more appalling for American readers by the knowledge, delivered in the foreward by University of Chicago Professor Bruce Cumings, that all this savage murder of students, workers and old people happened with the tacit support of Jimmy Carter's administration (and later, of course, the support of the Reagan administration). This is sobering news for Americans who like to think that Democrats--despite the militaristic decisions of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, et al.--are somehow more "pro-peace" than Republican warmongers, and that Jimmy Carter, with his Habitat for Humanity and monitoring of elections in third-world countries is an especially shining example of Democratic high-minded idealism at its best. It is depressing, to say the least, to read about Cyrus Vance and other members of Carter's administration kowtowing to South Korean dictators with blood on their hands, blood that would not be avenged until Chun and his henchmen were put on trial in the middle 1990s, by the Koreans themselves, not by the members of the Clinton administration in charge of the South Korean military command.

Kwangju Diary is a book all Americans should read. I understand now why many South Koreans, especially in Seoul, express anti-American sentiments and hostility to Americans as representatives of a country that has kept South Korea under the heel of one dictatorship or another for over four decades. How different this reality is from the fantasy projected by the American media of a happy and prosperous and democratic South Korea threatened by an evil, dangerous and communist North Korea (ruled by a brutal dictator, of course) that requires a perpetual US military presence on the Korean Peninsula and an effective hegemonic control of the South Korean military and South Korean "democracy.'

Leigh Clark
Monroe High School

[Anonymous]

I went to Hiroshima in 1989. It was hot, humid, and very modern. Until I got to the Pikadome (the surviving building at ground zero). I was impressed by the destructive force, but noticed that there was no effort at the museum to point out the responsibility of the Japanese war leaders and the cooperative public in causing one of the most destructive and murderous wars in Asia.

It did, however, point out the American responsibility for using the weapon.

I wrote a comment at the exit, in the guest book, that events like Nanqing and Hiroshima could have been avoided had the Japanese people and leaders behaved differently.

On a similar note, while teaching in a Japanese high school, I noticed that Japanese history textbooks missed quite a bit of WW II where Japan was involved. When Mombusho (the Ministry of Education) experimented in listing texts that did cover the material, the resulting backlash from a minority of conservatives forced the removal of the texts from the list.

I did not realize how much this situation of denial meant (Americans have more amnesia about WW II, than the Japanese, I feel), until I saw various complaints from Japan's Asian neighbors about visits to the Yasukuni Shrine by Japanese leaders, demands for an apology, and some groups demanding reparation.

Though I have sympathetic feelings to its Asian neighbors, I think Japan has a right to honor its military dead. The Shrine represents all those who served Japan from the Meiji Restoration to the present day. America honors its dead from both honorable and dishonorable military events. Just what does the Vietnam Wall mean to the families of two to four million Vietnamese killed by US military forces?

Who is without sin?

At any rate, I think Japanese should be able to honor their dead, as many nations do. Modern Japan has renounced war, but has no obligation to forget its sons who died serving it.

[Anonymous]

Greetings,

I believe that in order to teach about the recent past, we must teach our students the past, the cause of these recent events. I would begin with teaching about WWII and Japan's role in the Pacific War. Committing many crimes against humanity, Japan invaded many Asian nations. I would then explain the significance of Yaskuni Shrine as the memorial of Japan's war dead. I would also explain the 2 prevailing Japanese perceptions of their role in the WWII. Many Japanese minimize their role claiming it was the military that committed the atrocities and that there is no use dwelling on the past. Also I would teach the perspective of Japan as the victim of 2 atomic bombs. I would then have the students compare and contrast the Hist Text book situation in Japan with our own situation in the US regarding the treatment of Native Americans and African slaves and how much of US history is excluded from our books.

John Yamazaki

[Anonymous]

The Japanese have a right to mourn their dead, as does any nation. I remember the flap that occured when Reagan visited the cemetary where the S.S. soldiers were buried. At the time I was thoroughly outraged and could not believe any president could act so stupidly. Maybe I have softened or mellowed with age, but I have come to believe that even the aggressors are worthy of some kind of sympathy. Many of these dead soldiers, be they Japanese, German, Khmer Rouge etc. were as much victims as those they terrorized. They were sucked into the maelstrom and followed the herd. So many of them died before they really had a chance to find out who they were as people; before they had the opportunity to think about the greater philosophical questions that elude youth. I certainly don't agree with what they did, nor do I believe in the 'just-following-orders' defence of one's actions, but I truly see these losses as tragic as well. When we discuss these sorts of things in class, students often want the quick and easy moral resolution. In the past I was more than willing and able to do so; these days I try to see things from as many viewpoints as possible.
I remember when I was teaching Night to a 10th grade class, and a student asked me if I thought Hitler was an evil man or just a guy that made bad decisions for himself (and his country). I responded in the affirmative- Hitler was indisputably evil- but I also pointed out that life is a series of decisions that we all make. I emphasized that one of the tragedies of people like Hitler and his ilk, is that they were unable to harness their abilities to advance society.

[Anonymous]

This is interesting. The easiest thing to do is say Hitler was evil and leave it at that. You can do that with any infamous person. However, if we leave it at that, especially in a history class, we are missing the meaning, motivation, and emotional and mental state that leads to these bad men doing what they do. The question should be, "Why was Hitler evil, or, what made him evil, or, did everybody think he was evil? These questions can show why he did what he did, and most importantly, make parallels with other people that may follow the same path. How can we identify who is evil and who is good without understanding people who were evil and/or good. Is George Bush evil? Can we draw parallels here between Hitler and G. W., or is George Bush a hero for, in the light of a unpopular war that could cost him his legacy, truly protecting us from terrorism. Only time will tell, but in learning about people like Hitler, we can see clearer what dangers and pitfalls a nation can fall into with its leadership. History has lessons for us that can help us in the future as long as we ask the hard questions and examine the evidence that has been well documented about our past.

[Anonymous]

I, like you, feel the Japanese should honor their dead. I feel any nation should, even if that honoring creates or brings back old wounds of wars or misdeeds of the past. I sometimes have to set aside my politics and remember that any country has a right to mourn their fallen. Japan's past is regrettable and history bears that out, and we will never forget, just like the Nazis under Hitler, but these people died for what they believe in, and whether I believe it or not is irrelevant to the issue when it comes to honoring the dead.

The issue I would liken to this is the confederate flag issue in the south. I have no qualms about the fact that the number one symbol of slavery in the south was and is the confederate flag. I have not forgotten slavery, and many states in the south to this very day have not apologized formally for slavery, but I cannot say to the ancestors of the people who fought in the civil war they do not have a right to honor their dead with the confederate flag. Putting it on the capitol of the Georgia legislature is another matter all together, but I see parallels here with this issue and Japan. History has proven that Slavery was wrong and that its effects are still being felt today, but honoring the dead does not fall in the same category to me. [Edit by="tstevenson on Jul 24, 6:36:40 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

Fine approach...if you teach history. I do not. I teach English Literature, and you suppose that there are always influences that createthe evil in these men. Many great writers would beg to differ.

[Anonymous]

The US-Japan Alliance, a brief stragegic history

This is the title of an article appearing in this month's Education About Asia magazine. It's an interesting look at how the US and Japan moved past the events of WWII and became political and economic allies in today's world. It shows our mutual vested interests as well as what could happen if this alliance were to disintigrate.

[Anonymous]

The U.S.-Japan Alliance article is excellent. It was one of the few articles are I read out of the winter edition of the Education about Asia magazine. I teach U.S. history and my students are constantly surprised that Japan is not allowed to have a full blown military.
The article is also excellent because it points out important apecst for having strategic allies in certain parts of the world.

[Author]

Posts