[Jennifer Cutler]

I also want to acknowledge some of the differences between the two - especially because the reason the CCP formed was the early founders wanted more radical solutions to China's problems. And the KMT wanted modernism and reform, while resisting foreign influence. And perhaps, addressing Prof Dube's earlier question about Mao's infuence on the rural populations. Part of the reason the CCP moved to the rural area was to survive Chiang Kai-shek turning against the CCP. Mao himself was from a poor/peasant upbringing. In the "Peasants of Hunan" Mao stated "a revolution is an uprising, an act of violence whereby one class destroys another." So it's clear that Mao was taking some Marxist ideology with the percieved lower classes overthrowing the upper/gentry classes. 

[Jennifer Cutler]

I think one way to use the playing cards is to match them to slogans of the Cultural Revolution. "Never forget the class struggle!" "To rebel is justified!" "We will smash whoever oppses Chairman Mao!" and have the students match the slogan with a card. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-24923993) Almost like "Cards Against Hummanity" type of game where each student has to justify why their playing card aligns with one of the slogans of the Cultural Revolution. Another way to look at the cards may be with colors. The Little Red Book was so crucial to Mao, so I would ask students to find hints of the the Little Red Book in each of the cards. I like the 2 of clubs which shows Mao, "serving the People!"

[Jennifer Cutler]

I'm so curious to learn about the divide - almost that one worlds somehow became two with the armstice during the Korean War. How do we end up in Korea with a dictatorship in one nation and such an anti-communist gov't in the other? And what does it look like for this government-led economic development. The idea that Koreans, both N & S, experienced the actual "Cold War" as a reality is so different from how the western world experienced. That South Korea took about 30 years to develop into a democracy while the North went into an oppressive tyranny (I'm so biased, clearly) is quite remarkable. Do we think that both Koreas continued to suffer as a result of Japanese occupation and colonization? From the "comfort women" to cultural oppression (including renaming) to suffering loss of life, the legacy of this period dictates so much of how Korea opperates today - in politics, in gov't and in international relations. The Korean War drastically boosted Japan's economy but not until the Vietnam War does Korean economy see a similar boom. Do we think both Koreas will find common ground, even if it's to unite against their anger towards Japan? Teaching US History, I'd love to bring in this concept of America's "Forgotten War." It's so integral to Korea today and we have relations with both the South and North (don't get me started) that our intertwined history should certainly be part of our curriculum. So I'm looking for ways to do that. 

[Jennifer Cutler]

What struck me most was how much power the emperor still had - the MCO and the writings from progressive commentators didn't mention anything about the role of the emperor, or even having an emperor. So to see a whole section in the Constitution devoted to the responsibilities of the emperor, and read that the emperor was still from the same lineage, was a little surprising. Perhaps the reason the emperor is not mentioned in the MCO or the other docs is b/c it was tacitly understood that Japanese gov't, no matter how it changed, would include an emperor. And to see how much power the emperor had over the other houses (Imperial Diet and House of Representatives) made me question how much the new gov't was really "new." Because all there were certainly more "rights" for the subjects (articles 23, 24, 25 certainly evoke that idea - although most of that section includes more rights) the emperor had power over the legislative bodies. Perhaps Meiji critics were happy to have the rights recorded that they didn't bother to think about how little effect the changes actually had. Anytime a gov't doc includes "rights" of the people, it can seem similar to the US DOI or Constitution. However, in reality, the way the US defined people at different times in her history certainly changes the meaning of rights and liberties. So, like the Japanese Constitution, which decried for the emperor to continue reigning, and almost reigning supremely, the US President has often had the same luxuries afforded that position. We may vote for our president, but that vote isn't a direct election (just ask Al Gore or Hilary Clinton in recent years) and because voting rights have been denied to so many people, those in our gov't are not always true representatives. Maybe the US does end up with a presidential role similar to the Japanese emperor - and they may find themselves in the role through different venues, but neither can claim they are "representatives" of all the people. It doesn't seem like the emperor is subject to rule of law, while the president, in the words of the Constitution and later laws, is.

[Jennifer Cutler]

One way to have students better understand that growth does not equal development is to look at the industrial revolution in many western nations. As the countries' output increased often the quality of life depreciated. When studying this effect on China over the past centuries, we could ask a similar question: "what have been the major social consequences of China's rapid growth, especially over the last three decades?" China's economy during the later Qing Dynasty suffered from rebellion, invastion, civil war, and corrupt government administrators. So many have provided concrete examples with objects found around the classroom, but I wonder if students could understand the concept of economic growth and development from an abstract perspective. Could we look at data points from industrializing nations? Or could we look at post industrialized nations to see if economic growth and development have aligned more? This could help students understand how the two are correlated, but not necessarily equal. 

[Jennifer Cutler]

When studying the Treaty of Versailles so often history classrooms focus on the War Guilt Clause and the problems it caused for Germany. But often the non-western nations are left out of the Treaty and the classroom discussion. I think it would be a great activitiy to ask students to think about how each nation who felt cheated reacted to the treaty, which would include China and lead to discussion about the May 4th Movement. This would also help students understand Mao Zedong's beginnings, since he was the schoolteacher who supported the movement. 

Also, have students look into a possible "friendship" between Sun Yat-sen and Lenin - both were nationalists who spent time abroad and both became disillusioned with western democracies that refused to support their struggling goverments. Of cours Chiang Kai-shek had different ideas from Sun Yat-sen, but this could lead to further discussion about the April '27 conflict in which Nationalists moved in Shanghai and killed those they viewed as being communist threats. After the massacre, the Soviet Union did not recognize Chiang Kai-shek's gov't and perhaps becoming to western (since the USA and GB did recognize his gov't) peasants aligned themselves with the Communists (and Mao.) Again, this could be a great discussion to have in class about how different groups of people find leaders who may not support those people, but at least don't support a leader those groups dislike. And a comparison to today's United States political climate could certainly help students see repeat patterns in history - and perhaps predict possible outcomes and plausible solutions. 

[Jennifer Cutler]

I think the way to introduce students to the paradoxical history of 20th Century China would be through readings on communism and some of Sun Yat-sen himself. Because Sun Wen spent so much time abroad both parties were able to lay claim to his legacy: he was Chinese after all who wanted to overthrow the Manchus and form a Chinese Republic but he was also heavily influenced by his life abroad, where was exposed to ideas "foreign" to China. Having students read his "Three Principles of the People" could reveal his antiforeigner bias which would reveal why so many Chinese were quick to follow his doctrine - especially after the internal problems caused from external forces (ie Boxer Rebelllion.) But if students really focus on the third principal, "People's Livlihood" then they can join the debate that historians have surrounding socialist influence. Have students read an excerpt from the third principle and weigh in on any Marxist ideology they may notice. Of course, this may mean that students would have to have some familiarity with Marxism, but this could be done in conjunction with "Three People's Principles." 

As Prof Dube mentioned, the literati at the turn of the century was a burgenoing group - and with that comes feelings of resentment and feelings of ineffectuallness towards those in power - especially the Qing warlords who were attempting to hold on to those remnants of fading power. Having students look at the some of the literature from this time could allow students to understand why new ideas flooded into the fringes of society through this new class of intellectuals. Ask students to look at some of the historians who debate about this complex relationship between Nationalists and Communists could be a way for students to formulate their own opinions and understanding about their symbiotic existence. 

[Jennifer Cutler]

I think I'm your biggest fan - I love this idea too!!! 😉 It's always great to include visual and looking at the weaponry of China and Japan would be a terffic comparison! 

[Jennifer Cutler]

I like your role play idea - I bet it would be incredible to get in some primary sources in order to prepare! And I haven't thought about doing a pre-role play "prediction" activity. Which I think could also be beneficial in requiring students to look at possible solutions and then try to get them to control the discussion in such a way that the solutions they want ultimately are achieved.  

[Jennifer Cutler]

It's so wonderful to be able to have these discussions in a history classroom because so much of what we try to do is figure out solutions to problems based upon past examples. So I would use the rebellions against the Qing as another example of ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Often we tend to study history in regional silos, but if you look at the world in 1900 you can better understand why so many nations were struggling with nationalism and national identity. I would perhaps have students look at John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws" since both works were translated into Chinese right after the turn of the 20th century. Asking students to debate/discuss how these translations could have influenced change in China would require thinking of both change and outcomes - ie possible solutions. Also compare change in China to change in Germany and Italy (two nations that experienced nationalist reinforcement only 30 years earlier.) How did the Germans and Italians predict problems and find solutions? Did those solutions work?

[Jennifer Cutler]

The losses from the Opium Wars were so devestating that the Chinese realized they needed to reform - thus the "self-strengthening movement" of the Manchus focused on military chages. The Chinese brought in Westerners to train the Chinese in new technologies and the Chinese firmly believed they would master these technologies so well that they could surpass the west. The reform focused on military, then industry, then business (textiles, cotton.) Unfortunately, the reforms didn't include social changes and so as the military grew stronger internally China suffered from societal conflicts. The Self-Strengthening Movement ultimately failed due to low level of finances (if the poor have nothing and you tax nothing, you get nothing) and corruption within the empire's administration. So losing to Japan was almost as devestating as losing to the British. The Japanese, with the Meji Restoration, had successfully done what China believed would happen - modernizing/westernizing and surpassing many of Japan's neighbors. One way to explore this movement is to compare it with that of the Tanzimat Reforms in the Ottoman Empire. Or simply look at the ways that China attempted reform under Empress Cixi - who was committed to traditional values but supported certain reforms. This is another place to put in the Open-Door policy debate I mentioned earlier. Do you allow China to open its doors - knowing what happened last time they were "kept closed?"

[Jennifer Cutler]

As a result of the unequal treaty, China entered into the "Century of Humiliation." There are so many activities that you can do with this in the classroom. I had great experience doing a foreign policy debate - who was at fault for the opum in China? Should China open its doors to other nations and allow for trade? This can lead students to reconsider how governments and people make decisions that ultimately have devestating effects. Such could be the case with China's Opium Wars. Looking at a map of where the British planted their opium crops in India can further facilitiate a discussion about global trade and how the British knew what an infiltration of opium would do to the Chinese population. So was it the fault of the British or the Chinese who could (should?) have created stronger systems in place at the border and throughout the nation?

The results of the treaty include: Britain forcing China to pay an indemnity for the lost trade goods and to grant new trade concessions; Britain gained extraterritorial rights and China was carved up by the Europeans claiming rights and power to various sections of China; China lost Hong Kong and the Chinese had to allow the British to trade openly in Chinese ports. This image would be a nice way to start interpreting how the loss to Britain wasn't just one loss in a war, but many losses, as the other European nations honed in on China over the next 30 years. 

The unequal part of the treaty could lead to questions about who controls treaty writing. We see what happened when Germany wasn't part of the treaty process during WWI and how that snowballed quickly with the war guilt clause. So what could be some of the takeaways from this unequal treaty? Why did China go along with it so easily? Or did China really go along with the treaty the way we think? Perhaps the Taiping Rebellion could suggest otherwise - a group of people who wanted a nation where people would share wealth and poverty wouldn't exists - and the revolt was only the start of the Chinese trying to resist the treaty and outside influences. 

[Jennifer Cutler]

You should check out "Southernization" by Lynda Shaffer. I think WHFUA includes both her article and the "paper trail" activity in Big Era Five. 

[Jennifer Cutler]

The statistics show that while productivity in East Asia (China, Japan) contributed to a large share of the world's trade goods in the early 1800's, the rapid production and imperial practices of Europeans shifted the center of productions. We see this continually throughout the 1800's when Europeans attempted to colonize different parts of the world for their own industrial needs. So it was no surprise that China and Japan - two nations who industrialized later - may have lost some of the trade goods. Not necessarily addressed in the chart but a statistic to consider is what the goods were that China was trade. By the 1800's, China had access to tea, silk, porcelain, and silver. But as the Europeans industrialized, they were able to create synthetic, or even, manufactured goods. And the Europeans needs/wants changed. They wanted rubber, labor, timber, copper - materials used for machines.

[Jennifer Cutler]

Something that would be worth mentioning in classes, when studying East Asia,is the incredibly diverse responses to each of these topics. So often, students think when one country, or even a place more localized, does something, then that solution is applicable to all of East Asia. I think it's important to note how the different nations, and regions within each nation, have handled the various demographic and geographic issues Prof Dube discusses. 

With regards to water in the classroom: we look extensively at China in my 9th grade class and I would love them to look at the flooding of the seas and rivers. Using maps and news articles, students could investiage some of the possible solutions the Chinese have attempted when controlling the water and levees. Adding to this, students could even compare China's responses to that of Korea and Japan. One thing Prof Dube touched upon was the location of settlements in early Korea and Japan (by the seas) as opposed to more inland (China.) Perhaps when studying the ways that people adapted to their environment in each of the three nations, students would better understand the role that water plays in the development of early civilizations - or modern ones, for that matter! Even in my US History class, I can use the study of water in East Asia when we address the misnomer of events (Civil War vs. War of Northern Aggression in the US compared to East Sea vs. Sea of Japan.) How we identify regions in the world change the way we think about those regions.

Agining population and household expenditure in the classroom: how do various societies treat different classes of people? Too often we look at the old vs poor dichotomy (nobles vs peasantry) but shifting our own perspective to look at young vs old could allow for more critical thinking. How does a population take care of its elderly? We study so many other cultures which revere their elders - I'm even thinking of the Confucian idea of filial piety - that asking students to grapple with countries that are struggling, or successful, could lead to great class discussions. Especially in today's Covid-19 society. How do we care for our elders when sometimes we need to stay away from them? Although sad to think about many parents in Japan committing murder to avoid or escape debt, how do we handle debt so differently? One thing I did find curious was the lack of educational access addressed in the lecture. Yes, having children is expensive, another reason why the "one-child policy" in China seems de facto but education in East Asia is far less expensive than private and higher educational institutions in the United States. So while many adults suffer debt in the US because of education, debt in other nations isn't likely caused by that same factor. And because education becomes more accessible to students in East Asian nations (even though in Korea I believe it is rather expensive) more people may put off having children until later in life and thus that could change the demographics as well. Having students study this could certainly benefit them, especially as they grapple with their own decisions to enter work vs. school.

[Author]

Posts