[Cynthia Jackson]

I talked about this a little during our seminar but wanted to add this here in case this helps anyone else. If you’re considering a geography specific lesson that could utilize students' geographer skill sets, a lesson about Korea as a fought over colony would be engaging. It would allow students to view Korea as a whole and not a split peninsula divided by tensions and nuclear power. A lesson on this topic would answer the question: How did their location contribute to Korea becoming first a tributary state and then a colony? In seeking the answer to this question, students would have to use map features such as the compass rose, the scale bar, and the legend to discover what drew China and Japan toward Korea based on Korea’s location.

[Cynthia Jackson]

East Asia is an important region for our students to connect with. Most career fields they will enter after high school require our kids to know something about the countries there, speak a language spoken in that region, or be able to navigate a semester or internship abroad there. As East Asia is relevant outside of our classrooms, this means that geographical region is important inside of our classrooms too. Moving forward, I will be using what I have learned in the past two and a half months to finish building a unit that addresses the rich, long history of East Asia and introduce students to a part of the world they will interact with socially, culturally, and intellectually as they become adults. I have come up with ideas for or found materials for about 25 lessons to teach ancient and modern Chinese, Japanese, and Korean history. Some of these lesson topics are:

• China in the Industrial Revolution: GDP

• China in the Industrial Revolution: Economic Growth vs. Economic Development

• Opium Wars and Unfair Treaties

• To Save China Debate

• A Study: Isolationism in the Modern Age

 

Yes, East Asia is relevant today, but this region has also always been relevant. One of the qualities that makes this region perma-relevant is its experience with diversity. East Asia provides a good example of the dangers of “a single story”. Sometimes students are so used to hearing a phrase like this said in conjunction with the words “the United States” or “America” the lesson that needs learning does not sink in. However, teaching World Geography has afforded me to open up my classroom and center each of our units on deconstructing single stories, learning various perspectives, and coming to our own conclusions. I am excited to continue working over the next year to achieve these goals through the topics listed above.

[Cynthia Jackson]

Personally, I know very little about slavery systems in places outside of the Americas, so learning that it existed in Korea was very surprising to me. It was even more surprising to hear its description. The idea of people working small plots of land that they paid rent to- in food and/or money- helped me to draw parallels between Korean slavery and American sharecropping. Sharecropping was a system designed and sustained so that recently freed black would never be able to build wealth to pass down over the generation. People stopped discussing the large racial factor in the relationship between sharecroppers and land owners because people said it was a race-less class issue. In a similar way, Korean conversations did not strongly associate slavery with race-based issues, but a class that would never sustain wealth because of “natural ineptitude.”

[Cynthia Jackson]

For the class debate I was on the side of the reform movement, so I wanted to present my mini-argument here. “Our country needs to change if we are to withstand attack, both cultural and physical, from western countries. In a twist of fate, we must employ the strategies of the countries we are building a defense against. If we do not adopt some western strategies in order to become stronger, then we will be forced to assimilate and take all of their customs in our greatests moments of humiliation. Let us look at the Japanese defeat of Russia. Japan, a country who has existed in our shadow for so long, adopted some, not all, of western culture. As it was their choice they selected that which made them strongest, and as a result defeated a power that is every bit as European as they are not like the rest of the empires in our part of the world. We must change our worldview as well; we must, like Japan now calls themselves, see China as a nation- one that can be strongest if we combine the strongest qualities of our empire with the strongest qualities of their monarchies.”

[Cynthia Jackson]

To Live was recommended to me as a good movie to understand the building of "modern" China. For 7th grade, I think it would be helpful to show students several scenes in the movies and a note catcher to help them record their observations over the course of the movie. I would select scenes such as Fugui’s wife visiting the gambling hall, the first battle, and Long’er’s execution (just to name a few). Highlighting scenes like these would allow students to observe gender dynamics, China’s physical geography, class, and war culture on the front and at home- a topic that is usually reserved for western cultures in World War I and World War II- over three decades. These are some of the things that I would hope students would record on their graphic organizer:

• That classes changed after the Communist revolution

  • Landowners were executed 

  • Peasants were elevated to laborers

    • Name changed but quality of life hadn’t improved that much

  • Children worked to contribute to community work and war efforts as well

  • Food was given to families from communal halls

    • Food was rationed

  • Belongings were taken away from families to support war efforts

• That gender dynamics changed after the Communist Revolution

  • Before the revolution women were in more “subservient” roles such as servers or home makers

  • Afterwards, they worked everyday laborer jobs such as delivering water.

• War front

  • At war, Communist Army was considered more human than the revolutionaries

  • At home, families were told that their sacrifices were worth it although there little improvement for them

  • At home, those who had served in the Red Army were made community leaders

[Cynthia Jackson]

*Sorry I saw that I never shared some of my drafted posts.*

 

A simulation, like the one we did in class last night, is a great way to help students understand the three main perspectives of the China empire in the 19th century. For 7th grade, I would like to combine this with a mini-poster. This mini poster would be simple (sometimes less is more) and require students to add pictures and words answering the three questions. It would be similar to a collage, except this paper would have three distinct columns with these questions at the top of each one: 1) As a _______, what problems do you believe the Qing Empire has? 2) What do you hope China’s society will become? What will it look like when these problems are fixed? 3) How can we solve these problems to achieve your goals for China’s future? Analyzing sources for their assigned perspective, students would collaborate in groups to design and add evidence to their individual mini-posters that they would then be able to use during the debate. The group with the most people who spoke and provided evidence based arguments would “win” the debate. This lesson would most likely take two days for students to first analyze sources, make their mini-posters, and then argue their ideas.

[Cynthia Jackson]

In these lectures, Dr. Jung-Kim notes that Queen Min, in the latter half of the 19th century, and the First Lady, Park Chung Hee's wife, were assassinated. The assassination of rulers’ wives was not mentioned with China’s or Japan’s histories. In fact, with the exception of the assassination of Sophie, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s wife, before World War I, I do not know of other instances in modern history where a leader’s wife has been killed. The targeting of a ruler’s wife or queen is a tactic that I have read of more frequently during the medieval and pre-modern eras. What were the opposition’s reasons for targeting women in Korea, how did this happen twice, and what, if anything, has prevented oppositional forces from continuing to assassinate spouses in attempts to control Korean leaders in the past 50 years?

[Cynthia Jackson]

Before Park Chung Hee’s time in office, South Korea had a heavily import-based economy propped by U.S. funding. During his time in office, South Korea transitioned to a heavily export-based economy, without clear U.S. financial backing. I imagine that Korean economic data during this period of history would be quite fascinating to observe. Students could examine how this nation itself and its international partners changed during the 1950s-1970s by looking at items imported, areas of production, percentage of economy engaged in each area, and countries that sold to them and bought from them (and what they sold/bought in comparison to the other charts). It would be a good way for students to evaluate how economic trends and needs inform a country’s international policies and practices.

[Cynthia Jackson]

Although South Korea was militarily and financially supported by the U.S., having government roles such as a prime minister and limited presidential power would suggest other national influences. In particular, I feel like post-World War II Korea shaped their government using the Japanese as their example which perplexes me for two reasons. First, with Korea having been a Japanese colony starting in 1910, they experienced discrimination, a lack of civil rights, and economic depletion under the Japanese government for 40 years. Yet, Korea must have believed that the “positives” they experienced as a colony were related to Japan’s style of government in order for them to implement parts of it themselves. Second, with Japan’s government being modeled after western countries in the late 19th century and early 20th century, this means that Korea’s modern government implemented western traditions. However, we know that implementing these practices stirred a lot of debate and political strife in China and Japan, two other east Asian countries. Did Korea believe that their period as a Japanese colony had already mitigated any troubles they would have transitioning to a more western style of government? Or did Korea have reason to believe that their transition strategies would meet cultural expectations and not be met with resistance and revolutions like in China and Japan?

[Cynthia Jackson]

I was struck by the Marshall law commander's refusal to continue firing on the protestors. As this is 1960, Rhee has already had a political opponent executed and another killed. So my question is this: Wouldn’t the Marshall Law Commander's refusal to follow orders, been considered treason? If it wasn’t considered treason, was this due to division or a lack of strength among Rhee’s government, that support was thrown behind the commander and attempts to have them arrested or killed would have been met with opposition?

 

Another development that caught my attention was that the U.S. pulled support once widespread protests broke out in response to the death of a 17 year old who protested around the election. This is during the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. where police and state troops used violence against protestors, killing some protestors as well. During this time, the Civil Rights Movement gained more support from white America than it ever had because police and state sanctioned violence had been televised through news reports. This indicates that a majority of the American populace was becoming less comfortable with state sanctioned violence against peaceful protestors and those demonstrating human rights. How does the U.S. justify withdrawing support from a country that is using the same tactics they use? I think this would be a great question to drive learning for studying U.S. foreign policy post World War II in a middle school or high school Civics or U.S. History course.

[Cynthia Jackson]

I would like to explore Korea’s radio broadcasting as a primary source with my students, allowing them to identify its cultural and political value as it connected people within countries all over the world in the early-mid twentieth century. It would also be an opportunity to teach students how to recognize that when a country establishes national radio is one way to recognize “developed” countries and “developing” countries. Most importantly, to focus on Korea’s culture, history, and modernization, I would use excerpts of radio shows so that students could draw conclusions about Korea’s cultural practices, the peoples’ beliefs and values, regional differences, and international influences.

[Cynthia Jackson]

Thinking back to this conversation of unequal treaties that we had on Wednesday night, Commodore Perry visiting Japan on behalf of the U.S. and demanding trading rights or the consequences would be war, gave me two thoughts. (1) This is history that we do not focus on as Americans. In school, I’ve seen this same event taught as “Perry opened Japan through negotiations. What a feat!” The limited positive spin on this history with Japan makes me wonder if K-12 history textbooks were written this way post-World War II as the U.S. grieved those lost in the Pearl Harbor attack and as not to undermine a government that had built internment camps for Japanese Americans. While unfair treaties does not condone an attack 100 years later on service members and citizens that are not at war with you and while they sleep, as Americans, I feel like we are also led to believe that the U.S. interacted with Japan very little prior to World War II. Their relationship certainly changed as a result of that war, but I am now considering that the Japanese could have had other motivations to attack the U.S. besides their economic support of the Allies and that the Japanese could have been using war tactics that they had personally witnessed western powers use before. (2) Some people pointed out that the Treaty of Nanjing was not exceptional and that many treaties of this period were written in this style- the militarily stronger country decided the terms. Although I agree, I believe the reason that these particular treaties deserve so much attention is because as people studying history, we know what happened during the 20th century and now. Both China and Japan rose to power, competing and fighting with the same western nations that had subjected them to these treaties. The “unfairness” they were subjected to was not forgotten or forgiven. We see this same trend with Germany post-World War I. They also did not forget or forgive the dishonor attached to their country and the economic failure they plunged into after the Treaty of Versailles. The world paid for that unfair treaty in horrific ways. So yes, unfair treaties were not new in the 19th century and had been used by tribes, countries, and empires for hundreds of years, but the stakes of these treaties and their human costs as the world experienced the industrial revolution were higher.

[Cynthia Jackson]

Additionally, I found it interesting that both China and Japan were keenly interested in western thought and practices, however one country had difficulty with drawing from these ideas’ strengths and the other country had less trouble doing so. For a long time, the Qing Empire was concerned that China’s culture would be lost if Western ideas were used, however the Meiji embraced some of these cultural changes which seemingly allowed them to protect their empire’s future and re-define their culture according to their terms. The line from the Charter Oath reading, “Knowledge shall be sought throughout the world so as to strengthen the foundation of imperial rule” shows that Japan wanted an emperor who could preserve Japan’s history and traditions while expanding their powers in the western style. On the other hand, China the Qing Empire was willing to consider western education, science, and technology, but did not see westernization and modernization as an opportunity to strengthen the emperor’s seat of power. What made Japan more willing or capable of blending western thought into their empire and preserving their own culture? I wonder if Japan’s long-standing feudal practices, which were similar to European societies in the medieval period- the previous era before exploration, imperial rule, and mass nation building- made it easier for the Japanese to imagine or to actually transition into this new period of their history. If this is the case, then it would also make sense that China would have more resistance and difficulty westernizing as they would be changing more than Japan needed to in order to accomplish the same goal- modernization without cultural sacrifice.

[Cynthia Jackson]

The Japanese Charter Oath of 1868 exemplifies Japan’s willingness to modernize in the style of “the West”. While they did not become a democracy, their discussion of “matters being decided with open discussion” and “everything should be based on the just laws of Nature” reflects the beliefs of Enlightenment philosophers and some monarchs. There were European monarchs who during this period were excited by these ideas and used them to improve the quality of life in their countries, whether through education, access to food, or by providing economic stability within their borders. However, make no mistake- like the Japanese did- these Enlightenment monarchs also used this time to solidify their base of power. I wonder if the Japanese both saw an opportunity to modernize their country so as not to be “left behind” and recognized that they could politically strengthen a ruler like the Europeans had.

[Cynthia Jackson]

I agree with Jennifer- the comparison of weaponry and letting students "draw reasonable conclusions", which my department head discusses a lot, is a great idea!

[Author]

Posts