[David Walsh]

I have been taking this course out of personal interest and for PD; additionally, my  goal throughout has been to obtain a Certificate of Completetion.  I missed the last seminar on December 8th, the very first session of the term , and the latter part of the session on December 4th-i attended the other sessions as well as some additional sessions.  David

 

[David Walsh]

I will respond, at some length, here, to professor Clay's many-times repeated ad hominem attacks on me, and especially to his repeated mischaracterizations of anti-Asian racism as it exists today, and as it existed in the context of WWII especially on the West Coast of North America...In particular, I'm focusing on what Clay has written above, what happened in Kamei's seminar, and also referring to some recent personal email exchanges...

(1) First, Clay opens his commentary by simply praising professor Kamei's work as "outstanding," without EVER really getting around to saying exactly WHY it was so outstanding and WHAT was so outstanding about it.  That's fine- but also and euqally- that's the difficulty.  Certainly, I enjoy Clay's infectious positive West-Coast thinking !- I can only wish he would direct more of it my way in equal measure as he does in praising professor Kamei !-but we are not really here, as academics, as historians, or as Teachers , anyway, to engage in such unsubstantiated, uncritical,  cheerleading and fanfare.  Indeed, the USC-US-CHina Institue has requested 30 ANALYTIC posts from participants in this seminar ! So let's just all be a bit more ANALYTIC about this now !  I wish Clay would have said WHAT was so outstanding, precisely and analytically, accordingly, about Kamei's presentation, which also probably would have meant acknowledging her presentations' many glaringly obvious shortcomings too... I am NOT here to say that there is NOTHING valuable in what Kamei presented On December the 4th- obviously, there was some material there we can all learn from and consider using ourselves as Teachers and in life too.  But here's the deal: Kamei's presentation (a) lacked organizing structure, and (b) lacked a clear thesis from its beginning- its (c)  audio quality was rather impoverished too- those are just mainly FACTS and let's start by being honest about them. The main reason I objected, though,  only once, during the seminar by Kamei was mainly the following: (d) Kamei did not present both sides of the issue AT ALL in her framing/narrative and instead almost proceeded to present a pornographic, anecdotal, expose.  I am NOT exxaggerating in saying that but rather it was her, professor Kamei, that was clearly exxagerating-and that's the trouble if we are seriously talking about any branch of historical analysis or investigation or indeed classroom practices. Especially, the story of security guards pointing rifles at interned Japanese children told by Kamei- that story's purpose or fairness was pretty unclear and vague, to me, as she kept hammering home the racism theme throughout the first twenty minutes or so of her presentation. To be clear, sometime repetition is a valuable rhetorical move, and sometimes it isn't-let's be honest both ways about that, and recognize that reasonable people can differ in such judgements). Most importantly, I worry that Kamei gravely misrepresented the historical issues, and ignored ANY evidence (because there is a lot of it)  which conflicted with her narrative frame, just as professor Clay's subsequent commentary tends to do similarly and one-sidedly.  I assume Kamei has read more than me on her subject: hence, my great surprise that she didn't mention ANY of the abundant scholarship which is in tension with the story she was portraying in her seminar.  I probably should not have interrupted the speaker, professor Kamei,  as I did-perhaps you are surprised to see me apologize-   that's why I have since apologized, quite  sincerely and thoughtfully, and that's mainly why I left the seminar that day too.  But let's be clear about this too: I had GOOD reason to make was ENTIRELY a GOOD-FAITH, and CONCISE, and LEARNED, objection, in the seminar that day, based only on my own learning and concern regarding the speaker's subject. I was not having an ego-trip or being unusually impatient-indeed I WAS listening actively and that's WHY I objected. Therefore, overal,l while I agree that I should have raised my digital hand and waited more, my use of the term PROPAGANDA was not entirely off-target that day at all to describe what Kamei and Clay are up to.  And it's debatebale and worth considering why Clay should lay SO MUCH emphasis on my error, which I can concede was a MINOR error (in his view and also to some extent in my view).

(2) Clay's second paragraph above- (much like Kamei's presentation)- discusses the racist historical background of the West Coast of North America of much of the XXth-century.  I have repeatedly addressed this point in emails to Clay in indeed in the Zoom chat direclty in that day's seminar BEFORE and AFTER I voiced my objection.  Clay and I partly agree and partly disagree, and it's a matter of analytical clarity and of emphasis.  Yes, Clay, it's important to know about this racist background you speak so frequently of in the context of WWII and even (to a MUCH lesser extent) today.  This background of racism-here is where anyone would agree with Clay and Kamei- IS relevant to understanding the Japanese internments in Canada and the United States in WWII. BUT  !  The central historical issue is NOT about the mere fact that this racist background existed at the time.  The central issue debated by Historians is about whether the INTERNMENT itself was racially motivated-that's what scholars debate about whereas NOONE ever debates the fact that background structural racism existed at that time and place.   A plausible answer to the central historical question, based on a careful analysis of the diplomatic history of the period, is that the Japanese internment was 'NOT really racist.'  THAT's what 6 out of 9 justices of the Supreme Court concluded CAREFULLY at the time, and much of that verdict has stood the test and scrutiny of time (despite the article about Earl Warren Clay kindly shared, and thanks for that one, Clay).    I have tried to carefully explain this basic distinction (between background structural racism at the time and the actual motivations of Japanese internment) to Clay in two personal emails recently, and he has tended to downplay my feedback while 'partly' acknowledging it.  (See also my short comment on Antoinette's post above where I haveprovided a much more useful and balanced discussion of the central historical issue than Kamei's one-sided, albeit interesting, account did).. In short: I am open-minded and prepared to have a HISTORICAL DEBATE based on evidence on this issue with anyone, any time, any where. ANd let's start with this: FDR himself probably was not particulary of anti-Asian animus, and nor were many of his advisors who helped formulate this policy-a policy which was anyway a temporary expediency annnulled at the conclusion of the war, a policy which survived a a Supreme Court challenge with a 6-3 majority.  This was precisely around the time when the United States did so much to help rebuild Modern Japane into what it is today ! Professor Clay admits much of what I'm saying in his subsequent paragraph above, which describes concessions towards Chinese-Americans in the same period-precisely this paragraph of Clay's shows that animus towards the Japanese at the time was more geostrategic and military than it was RACIAL or a matter of skin-tone.  I could alos rest my case there ! 

(3) When professor Clay above declares that "racist assumptions powered the enforcement of the policy" he proves my point again: that the formulation (rather than the implementation) of the policy itself may not have been mainly racist in character.  Likewise, professor Kamei DEFINITELy should have made this central logical distinction in organizing her presentation from the outset-  becauset it is a VITAL distinction in framing the issues, as I pointed out immediately (and politely enough) in Zoom during her talk.  Clay's further concessions above, moreover, similar to his paragraph about concesions to the Chinese,  saying that there also existed anti-Irish and anti-German sentiments at the time-this is a point Mr. Rutley also adduced in our forum- ALSO proves my point AGAIN: this was a nationalistic, national-security, issue at the time which was NOT mainly rooted (in its formulation) in race (though I agree with everone on the non-controversial statement that racism heavily influenced the implementation of the policy and was part of the general background or mentalite or zeitgesit of the policy-these are innocuous statementsr which do not address Korematsu's Supreme court challenge though).

(4) Thank you, professor Clay, for AGAIN proving me to be largely more right than wrong  in one of your subsequent paragraphs above- where you UNBELIEVABLY repeat the notion that the question "where are you from" is inherently racist !  Sir, did you not spend some of your life in China ?  Professor Clay: this claim really is ABSURD beyond repair so, in a strange way, I thank you for proving me right by your attempt lead all of us all down such a totally false rabbit-hole of argumentation..   I can demonstrate this to anyone, any time, at length- sir, you are TOTALLY wrong on THIS point.   Well, OK;  your claim there MIGHT might be somewhat salvageable in a few rare and unusual contexts; but, by and large, generally speaking, the question 'where are you from?' is NO indictment of racism or racists at ALL.  It is usually an entirely GOOD-FAITH question just like my INTERVENTION in the seminar. And Clay: on this one it looks like you are entirely outside of your own area of expertise so I have no hesitation to debate with you about it-I think it's probably more my in my area than yours if I may judge by your comments.   

(5) Let's now talk, finally, about the Atlanta spa shootings-something perhaps we all should have done when initially this came up before in our seminars.  This is an event way back in March of 2021.   Here is the deal: professor Clay has referred to this event, more than once in the seminar, in his typically vague and virtue-signaling fashion,  as some sort of demonstration of anti-Asian prejudice or racism today in the United States.   And, well, his claim is WRONG about that again-almost entirely so, again.   Subsequent investigations (of this event, the Atlanta shootings this year) have showed (according to my reliable sources-and I'm happy to share these any time with interested audience members) that this heinous and tragic crime, which we all deplore and detest so strongly in our hearts and minds, was NOT really racially motivated after all.   Clay: this is a fake news story as you portrayed in our seminarys which, if anything,  actually DISproves your frequent vague claims about the prevalence, not the mere existence, of anti-Asian racism today in the North America-(and the sociological issue is obviously about prevalence not mere existence).     And I would be happy to discuss many more DISproofs with you any time of the claim that anti-Asian racism is highly prevalent today in California...DOn't you all LIVE there ?  Because it sounds like you don't talk to too many fols there...Discussions about the origins of Covid19 in Wuhan this year, for instance, need not necessarily be interpreted as 'proofs' of anti-Asian prejudice- and you don't need a PHD in CHinese Historiography to see THAT !  These are just questions of rational skepticism, and also understanding that certain people have vested interests in reproducing certain narratives which, once operationalized, may be shown to be more or less true or false.  Meanwhile we all know that racism is a rather endangered and dying species in most parts of the world and especially on the West Coast of North America (though I'm happy to debat ethis point empirically with any interested parties provided you are debating in GOOD-faith). 

(6) Let's now look at Clay's uber-favorite pet claim that I am "uncollegial," whereas everyone else here-espeicially Clay and  the outstanding Kamei (and let's not forget Catherine Gao and inimical Todd Rutley)- y'all are all so unimpeachably and irreproachably, irrevocably,  more collegial THAN ME  on my best day (with emphasis!).  Well, Clay: I am not the only one in the seminar who ever spoke out of turn- that's chief-fact number one. And we have had many guest-sepakers WELCOME (rather than silence) GOOD-faithed audience interventions as, really, you would expect to be the case in most small-group, PD seminars, FOR Teachers.  That's fact number two. Fact number three is: it happened ONLY ONE TIME, Clay-and it was you who so often (and I almost want to say so hollowly, except that I do respect you) claimed that the EMPHASIS here was on HOW we could use this AS TEACHERS. There is fact number four. Clay, surely I have demonstrated to you, in my lengthy emails, and again here, what I was up to-that's fact number five. Yet even after I emailed you twice about it you STILL sent out a group email paritcularly singling me out as 'uncollegial' AND you also posted here in this forum sayin- quote- "David Walsh, YOU don't listen !" That's fact number six.   Well, here is another (and much better) way of thinking about it.  Professor Amy- (sorry I can't remember her last name here-you know, the anthropologist who spoke about women in Modern Japan)- how did SHE open HER seminar ?  The asnwer is: she opened her seminar saying "go ahead and ask questions at any time !".  That's exactly what collegiality looks in the real world Clay-FYI.  It does NOT look what you and professor Kamei, and your fans (like Catherine Gao and Todd Rutley)  seem to be up to in this non-dialogue of SILENCING me, and what seems to be a rather fake moral panic.   I apologized, indeed, almost immediately after the event, quite sincerely so.  And yet you, professor Clay, still wrote to the whole group, and wrote here AGAIN in this forum, saying "I don't listen' and 'I'm uncollegial" ? Really ? As a side note, by the way: I thought, when another student sopke out in the seminar (probably out of turn) to literally call you, professor Clay, a 'sexist' pig', I thought THAT WAS very uncollegial at the time !- but I don't see THAT student being publicly shamed and humiliated in USC emails and in this forum for excersizing HIS free-speech rights in THIS academic context !  Quite the howler that was !

(6) In Summary: Clay: your discussion of the Japanese internment seems really misguided (though I would expect that you and professor Kamei would know more about this issue than me, and though I have carefully emailed you twice my perspective on this issue, long before responding to you here in this forum).  Your cursory discussion of the Atlanta shootings was wrong, based on an a failure to investigate the issue, a failure of due process, a failure of critical thinking too.   Your singling ME out as uncollegial really ONLY because I happen not to exactly share some of your critical sympathies with regard to 'Critical Race Theory'  is also deeply problematic although, as an honest interlocutor, I have also acknowledged that there is some grey area there- and, at least, unlike you and Susan Kamei, I DID take responsibility and apologize for what was after all a very minor incident.  I objected ONCE to ONE of your guest-speakers at a critical juncture of her talk, during a rather pronographic expose of unclear purpose, and in good-faith.   You responded by publicly shaming me in a group email and in this forum, with the overall effect of chilling any dissent from your markedly one-sided framing of the central historical issue which I thought we were here to learn (and exchange) about.  The central issue is NOT that background racism existed at the time which no doubt affected the implementation of the internment policy but whether the policy itself was racist- a lot fo the evidence regarding the central issue is that the policy was not really racist (though I can admit that it's complicated and open to reasonable debate-I wish Kamei would have addressed THAT).

Last but not least: I'm still a big fan of you, sir, professor Clay, just like you ar ea big fan of the scholary work of Suan Kamei (though I wish you had explained why that is so). I simply do NOT agree with your and Susan Kamei's framing of the central historical issues regarding the Japanese internment-and I am far from alone in THAT disagreemnt !; moreover, I find your comments about collegiality and listening rather stilted and terse, sort of inaccurate and unfair.   Certainly, I could be more collegial and listen better: but the same advice seems to apply equally to yourself and to professor Kamei, despite your much more privileged positions relative to me in this context.  that obvious obviously applies to all of us here in different ways (if you really think about it). I am probably about as good of a person as you or Kamei are, and apparently I know about as much as both of you about this important matter of historical and analytical and moral investigation even though you SHOULD really know more about it than I do since you get paid to study such things and I usually don't- I am here mainly for the love of knoweldge and really that might be one of the biggest differences among the three of us if you want to engage in a moral discussion or comparison.

I wouldn't say that all academic dialogue needs to be dialectical but this was clearly a case when, by almost totally ignoring obvious objections to her own framing of the issue, Kamei's presentation had serious shortcomings worth highlighting.   To speak out of turn in a webinar in such a circumstance may have been mistake, but a lot oof what you said subsequently-all the vague and haughty talk about structural racism- reinforces my view that I had a point in doing so.  'There is truth on both sides.'  We can and should certainly apply moral judgements to the past but Kamei's talk missed an important opportunity to seriously evaluate the moral credentials of Roosevelt's policy- this is a historical issue which DOES still live with all of us today so it was important to have a debate about it (rather than a dogmatic sermon).     

David, December 9th, Ottawa 

    

 

[David Walsh]

I enjoyed reading your short summary of this issue, because I find your writing balanced: that is, on the one hand, you address some of the very real injustices which occurred; but in addition you described some of the useful context.    Anyone who is interested in the Canadian part of this story, which is strikingly similar to what happened in the United States, might enjoy the following useful short article.  I love this article because it presents a DEBATE and therefore NOT a one-sided account...

https://legionmagazine.com/en/2015/07/face-to-face-should-the-canadian-government-have-authorized-the-forcible-evacuation-inland-of-japanese-canadians-during-the-second-world-war/

[David Walsh]

This is a featured selection of texts including complaint/grievance letters written by various disgruntled Japanese wives-the format, and the forum, are roughly similar to the famous 'Dear Abby' column of the the United States.   The selected writings of Japanese wives, complaining about their husbands, brings into focus a few interrelated themes: (1) especially, gender relations (in the context of marriage) in modern Japan but also, by contrast, (2) Western expectations regarding these same themes (marriage and gender).  The main idea is that- as we heard in an earlier webinar in this symposium: while the 'work-world' of Japan tends emphatically to be male-dominated, the domestic sphere tells a different and opposite tale.  Thus, Japan, even today, retains aspects of a distinctively Victorian repetoire of Gender relations (married Japanese women retain impressive dominance over children's education and household budgets despite, and in contrast to, their 'submissiveness' in the work-o-sphere).  Another point registered in these texts is the rather modern and Western expectation that romantic relationships will be all-purpose,  all-consuming and consummating-intense, intimate and fulfilling. The examples of Japanese marriages featured in this selection do not tend to fit THAT set of norms since Japanese marriage seems generally to have a more utilitarian, for-the-kids, becoming-an-adult, passing-of-the-torch, character...I have heard similar points raised, by the way,  in my own experience, describing the character of Chinese marriage, in general...

Comments: it's curious how UNIVERSAL marriage is in, say, the Arab, or the Confucian, or Indian, or Christian (or even the Buddhist) worlds; and, yet, this article reinforces the fact that important differences persist cross-culturally even today regarding Gender and marriage.  I think gender differences and preferences are fairly and remarkably stable universally; yet they are clearly also inflected by cultural expectations and norms.   In this selection of texts, we learn that Japanese women would regard marital infidelity differently (and less severely) than many of their counterpart Western females probably would; we also see that some degree(s) of arranged marriage still exist in Japan.   Without stereotyping overly, I would say that this selection of texts aids me to understand some of the behavior of some Asian males I have met (who won't do the chores) as well as some of the attraction some Asian females may express towards certain non-Asian males...The point is salient that Japanese may tend to envy Western romantic ideals but that the oppositie is also true; some people in Western countries (male and female) might find something worth emulating in the relaxed or more realistic aspirations of a stereotypical Japanese marriage...    

 

[David Walsh]

This article discusses not so much HOW bu rather THAT TSMCC has achieved a dominant position in the global 'race' to produce ever more small, fast, efficient, and effective microchips...

This article is significant to me, personally, because- the last time I had perused the news (2 or 3 years ago) on this issue- the United States (specifically, the manufacturer 'Intel)' had retained a dominant position in this important technological race-which was one (but not the only) economic area where the United States still out-competed China.  But, as of the 2020s, Intel no longer really dominates...A Taiwanese company (TSMC) has oupaced or outflanked or innovated beyond its closest competitors (mainly companies in South Korea (Samsung) and the United States (including Intel) but also European companies)...

Therefore, the geopolitical status of Taiwan (long contested since around 1949 or even before that date) is focalized more for that reason...

Comment: Taiwan is one of the SE Asian 'Tiger' (cub) economies which experienced dramatic growth in approximately the 70s, 80s, 90s, and beyond, according to the so-called 'Flying V' (or Geese) pattern of development of Japanese and American investors off-shoring manufacturing into lower-cost Asian economies.   Today, this pattern continues beyond the original four or five Asian Tiger (cub) Economies and extends such that various other parts of Asia (rather than only China) are increasingly dubbed the 'workshops of the world'. Yet Taiwan still currently maintains an impressive advantage in a strategically important industry (for intellectual-preoprty-rights reasons) all the more important given global supply-chain constraints in the pandemic era...Microchip manufacturing is strategic and highly capital-intensive, and a creator of abundant jobs, directly and as spinoffs, in Taiwan.

I will also add that Taiwan has experienced acute environmental problems in the second half of the XXth century but has more recently made some impressive advances in that regard (and the same could be said of many other Asian Tiger (cub) economies in the 2000s)...Partly, that phenomenon seems to be explained by the so-called (environmental) Kuznets curve...

 

 

 

[David Walsh]

Thank you for bringing this important issue (the Hukou System) back to our attention, which is something I had read about in the years I was in China (2014-15-16)...Something which I didn't see discussed in the video presentation section I just watched is the original RATIONALE for this sytem (which is a descendant of older household registration systems in China, and which also existed in some form in other east Asian countries).  Was the Hukou system in the XXth century derived particularly from the Marxist idea of even development (or industrialization) across the countryside ?  Was it a response to China's peculiar demographic situation : i.e., overpopulation in the last two centuries, treaty ports, booming Eastern provinces, resource scarcities- perhaps also the unique revolutionary role Mao ascribed to the peasantry ?   It will be interesting to consider what reforms have taken place since 1976 (of the Hukou System) and which others may be announced, for example, in the next party Congress (of November 2022).   I'm interested to look at the film you suggested (Last Train Home).   Nations standardly limit EXTERNAL migration (though some less orthodox critics have questioned aspects of that).  Can restrictions on INTERNAL migration be justified for the same or different reasons as limits on international migration ?   What would economists say about the costs/benefits of such limits on internal migration (in addition to obvious concerns about Human Rights)?

[David Walsh]

When I taught junior High School in China in 2014-15 and part of 2016, I tried to teach this very complex topic, essentially, contrasting China's political system with ideal-types of 'Western' democracies- using powerpoint !   Certainly, this is a topic bound to fascinate many students around the world, a topic which it can be hard to find sufficiently unbiased coverage of.  That is, even distinguished American China scholars writing in the New York Review of Books often wear their contempt for China's political system like a badge of pride...

(1)One interesting, because relatively simple, way to draw the contrast between authoritarian/democratic states is to compare China and the United States' (or another countries') constitutions, provided we understand that the word 'political constitution' has a narrower (documental) and a wider (institutional) meaning.

(2) It's also the case that countries in which Marxist-Leninist groups attained power in the XXth century standardly described themselves as 'democracies', which can help to focus the question for students.   A further complication is that modern representative democracy differs enormously from its ancient Greek origins (and this contrast about ancient vs. modern democracy is a topic students are drawn to as well, and a great and accessible literature exists about it).  Scale is relevant here : even if contested elections work, to some extent, in India, are they really workable at the SCALE of the biggest states in the world in general ? Does this change in the digital age ?

(3) In my China period, I read quite a lot about whether and to what extent China is democratic.   China cannot be described as democratic in terms of pluralist party contestation (although the constitution of the PRC formally recognizes certain non-communist parties, these seem to be merely ornamental, wiedling no real power at all).   Some of even the American Political Science literature DOES claim, however, that China IS democratic AT LEAST at more local, smaller-stakes, levels, including procedures for choosing local party or municipal officials. The general point seems to be that the CCP vets candidates and excludes non-party candidates increasingly as one rises up in the hierarchy toward higher echelons at the center.  Can the CCP be described as at least INTERNALLY democratic ?  Can there be a one-party democracy or an authoritarian democracy ?  The issue of whether China is IN SOME WAYS democratic is fascinating and important.

(4) The contrast between authoritarianism and fascism is also relevant here; so is the contrast between parliamentary and presidential and mixed systems around the world; so is the question of to what extent the CCP is really Communist since the 1980s or even socialist.

(5) According to a classic article, representative assemblies (i.e., parliaments) do three things : they REPRESENT people, they deliberate, and they break-ties (or make decisions)-these three functions are supplemental to the basic law-making and law-enforcement (security)  functions of government (and another one is to facilitate wealth-creation).  Given these three neutral criteria-deliberation, representation, and decison-making- how does the performance of the CCP actually compare to another country's (say, the American) political system ?

(6)One commonly subdivides 'government' into executive, legislative, and judicial branches- the question of the lack of independence of China's judiciary (and the effectiveness of China's legal system more generally) is an obviously interesting focal point deserving further analysis...

 (7) A great activity for students (which I haven't tried) would be to set up a debate between advocates of China's or the American political system; another great activity would be to have students look for bias in Chinese coverage of American politics AND vice versa...

 

[David Walsh]

Professor Jung-Kim's first video for this week's session featured a useful overview of the so-called 'comfort women,' which was a WWII phenomenon but which-as mentioned in the video-  seems to have predated WWII in Japanese imperialism, and probably elsewhere too around the same period and region.   She mentioned that the Comfort Women were not a focus of, for example, the Tokyo Trials; and one reason she mentioned for this abscence was that rape (and sexual exploitation) was not typically legislated in what body of International Law existed at the time.   That is an interesting observation : so, similarly, it would be useful to learn more about the History of the recognition of this sort of crime in International or National law in our next seminar, if anyone has more to say about this.  It had not occured to me that sex-crimes in times of War were probably not discussed or legislated in the books or codes of International Law which predate WWII.  The general point seems to be that moral thinking about 'Just War' (Jus in bello) has evolved much in the XXth century in step with the emancipation of women in most parts of the World, the elaboration of Human Rights by the UN, and as a reaction to atrocities of the first part of the XXth century.  Perhaps it's interesting to consider a contemporary apologist for the Japanese' perspective, according to which sex-crimes really were not considered to be 'crimes' at the time either in law or morality.  Full disclosure: I know very little about any of these issues.  

[David Walsh]

Much to think about: it would be interesting to hear your view about the prospects of reunification of the two Koreas in the near future, in our upcoming seminar. I just watched the first video lecture- perhaps this issue (reunification)  will be addressed more in the second video lecture which I'm about to watch.

[David Walsh]

I'm not sure, without reading the diplomatic History deeply: but think the word 'enabling' sounds better than 'promoting'.  It sounds like the Anglo-Japanese Treaty and some US diplomacy of the period makes subsequent Japanese imperial aggression possible, in the first half of the XXth century, without necessarily 'promoting' it-this is the disitnction between a motive cause of some historical event and an enabling background condition.   When we enable and tolerate something, in international affairs, does this slide into 'promoting' certain outcomes ?  One would have to dig deeply into the language of the treaties and diplomatic communications of the period, and of their underlying agendas/motives, to answer...To the extent that thinkers in the early decades of the XXth century embraced some sort of Social-Darwinist view of International Affairs, then perhaps Roosevelt, an unapologetic imperialist himself in some ways, enabled and perhaps even promoted Japanese aggression in the Pacific in the early half of the XXth century- but the negotiations of the Treaty of Portsmouth as well as the Open-Door Policies might be counterexamples to the way of looking at it your proposed.   

[David Walsh]

Hello- I found the papercuts a bit easier to read than the cards.   The papercuts display unanimity, propagandistically,  in a way which probably offends some modern sensibilities- these papercuts display an intense kind of solidarity, that is,  which many probably rarely experience in real life today or even see as depicted in art-so this is socialist realism with Chinese characteristics, as it were.  To me, what these papercuts show is that, notwithstanding all of their shortcomings, the CCP was able, at least for a time, to foster kinds of community spirit which were mythological and yet real to the extent that they may have been believed and endorsed in some sections of Chinese society in the 50s, 60s, and so on.   The idealism of these artworks is still present in some CHinese situations today: for example, in the group dancing in public schools (which takes place almost every day) or in group dancing in public squares (I think the Chinese might be leaders when it comes to public dancing in city squares).  Saying this is not of course to deny that other forms of communitarian social ethos exist in a variety of places including some US communities and other parts of Asia.  D  

[David Walsh]

Both the Guomindang and the CCP are nationalist AND reformist (though the intensity of reform proposed by Communists could be greater in some areas-they are more revolutionary).  Both are anti-imperialist, this is a corrolary to the nationalism- both are anti-Japanese too (although we noted in the video that SOME nationalists had collaborated as much as they resisted).  In the postWWII situation (1948-9), the GMD in Taiwan and the CCP in much greater China would pursue very different agendas, in each case seeking to identify itself with what is 'really CHinese' and with neither's ambition ultimately succeeding.   China-Taiwan is to be be subsumed into the logic of Cold-War, for the next 3 or 4 decades, with many countries not recognizing Taiwan's OR China's territorial claims internationally- but this is not to deny the deeper shared cultural history of Taiwan and China which is in some sense an argument for re-unification today.   As an outsider, I would tend to elide Chine and Taiwanese cultural identities; but I am sure there are significant differences and antogonisms both in longer-term History and particulary since the 1940s estrangement of Taiwan from China.

 

 

[David Walsh]

Your question reminds me of what an older Chinese friend of mine once told me.   She said : "Spring Festival (a very big Chinese Cultural tradition) has changed a lot from her generation (coming-of-age in the 70s and 80s) to her grandaughter's generation growing up on the 2010s."  As a more general point, from my experience living in CHina, I would say that feelings of Nostalgia towards the Mao years are not totally rare or uncommon among older CHinese living in the 2000s, and yet (in my experience) the Chinese, in general, are decidedly forward thinking and optimisitic-you might say progressive or reformist or adaptive- it's not like anyone yearns to return to those bad old Communist days of yore in today's China, and perhaps one could find similar attitudes  in sampls of the attitudes of present-day Fililpino(a)s towards their country's (very different than the Chinese) past. I say that with the caveat that new trends and currents may have emerged in China during the Covid period, and under the extension of the Xi Jinping-led administration, though I can't see Chinese political orientations and views changing that much (in the general population) in such a short period of time.   I am no expert on this, but I regard much of Xi's policy reform in the later 2000s as merely tinkering within the post-Mao capitalist-cum-commmunist, rather centralist, frame whose ground work was laid by Deng Xiaoping around the time I was born (1981).  The existence of China just is, ipso facto, a plausible challenge to the idea that democracy means contestation among political parties at all echelons.   Apart from that obvious conflict (about whether democracy needs to be universalized) , I don't see that the United States (or other Western countries) has/have reason to be in conflict with China in International Politics, although it's true that many sensible people tend to conceive of the International environment in such Machiavellian terms (reminding me almost of Social Darwinisim) in many contexts.  There is a sense in which not only China and the United States but many countries today are too-big-to-fail and so less likely to engage in largescale, potentially pointless, political protest compared to what might have seemed almost normal at the time of the Cultural Revolution (the late 60s in China) among people who lived through the Great Leap Forward.  Footnote: phennomena such as the (Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward and openings of the 1980s obviously were experienced in very different ways in different areas of such a diverse country as China (though in some ways China can seem rather uniform today and this is a partly legacy of the Communist years as well as of earlier strata).  

[David Walsh]

Thanks for sharing that.  I happen to be Teaching this topic currently so I'll try to check it out soon. David   

[David Walsh]

David Walsh here-thanks for including me in the course.   I currently Teach the Arab World in Middle School, primarily, so I am busy studying that region, but I also have a longstanding fascination with sinophilia and a curiosity to learn more about East Asia-this is to build my toolbox for hopefully Teaching more in the future, and simply for curiosity.   That's me ! I love how taking an area-studies approach to the study of regions integrates History, Geography, Language, and so much more. DW

 

 

[Author]

Posts