[Kimberly de Berzunza]

How did Kim Jong Il ensure regime survival? 

It seems like Kim Jong Il inherited a nation whose glory days were fading into the past, and he needed to do something to keep it going, yet in a new way- maybe to fit with the times, or maybe to distinguish himself from his father.  Maybe some of both.  By the time he took power, it was clear that pure Soviet-style or Cuban-style communism wasn't working, and the PRC isn't even really communist anymore. What really mattered to him was military strength- which, if you don't have economic strength, could be a reasonable idea, but it's not very sustainable without the economic force to back it up. It also strikes me as incongruous to be building up your military prowess on the one hand, and cooperating with your supposed enemy to open joint-owned factories and share the Unified Korea flag. But maybe this was what they needed at that time to keep stability, to give hope to a certain demographic, and just keep the support of the people?

How did South Korea’s Sunshine Policy change international relations?

I really didn't have any idea that there had been so much cooperation between NK and SK for any period of time, so this was all surprising to me!  For the first time, as Laura put it above, NK got to sit at the grown-up table with the world powers.  I think this is fascinating based on the prior history. But the fact that most countries didn't follow through also shows what changes when there is a transition in leadership and people come in with different priorities.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

I have not studied much about the Korean War and I didn't really realize the 2 years of stalemate. What a terrible and meaningless tragedy. I can see how this would make the NKoreans especially hateful of the Americans. My great-uncle went MIA there in April of '52. I can't help but think how horrible they must have been to him, but also how many people/towns/bridges did he bomb? He was a fighter pilot.

The Robinson article gives a good answer to question #2: "The more serious scars, however, were psychological. Koreans have lived the last fifty years in a state of war... The war tore families apart and sent several million refugees from North to South... The war polarized politics." (p. 119) This seems clear as to how the war determined the divergent paths of the two Koreas.

I appreciate how "Beyond the Numbers" gives a more human look at the war.  These anecdotes support the point I made above in citing the Robinson article, that the scars are psychological.  How do people rebuild their lives after watching such devastation on their own land? This has been our world since the beginning of civilizations, but modern Americans do not have much context for this.  For us, this war was long ago and far away.

In terms of question #1, Kwon and Chung describe Kim Il Sung as a classic populist leader, making personal contacts in a way that made the average worker feel heard, seen, and valued. Obviously this bought him support. People want to feel valued, and are likely to reciprocate that feeling in any way they can. Kim Il Sung developed a persona, becoming a paternalistic caretaker of a new, “free” state. But then on top of that, he found a way to convert people’s hardships into something honorable, to connect their suffering to his. In another society people might have rebelled against their government when they were starving, but North Koreans have been taught that to confront hardship is to follow in their Leader’s footsteps- so this is part of the deification of Kim Il Sung.

The Lankov chapter really solidifies the ways in which Kim Il Sung was able to establish himself, although I would argue that here it is as the “Great Leader” and most wonderful person to have ever lived, rather than simply “communist monarch.” The descriptions of the level of propaganda and indoctrination are incredible and creepy. I could not help but think of Panem of “The Hunger Games” and the world of 1984. How do you get there? By telling the people what you want them to believe, daily for years and years, embedded in math problems and fables, painted on posters and murals, built into obligatory traditions, marked by giant statues, and through complete control of media and access to information.  I see many frightening parallels.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

How did Kim Il Sung establish a communist monarchy?

I think this was due to a combination of factors, but one of the main ones in my mind would be what several noted already: that people- families, land, and life- were devastated and needed something to look to. Kim Il Sung offered that through communist means and convinced them it worked through propaganda.  But another important point is the historic domination by Japan and China, and that feeling of perceived freedom- yes, like Castro's Cuban Revolution.  If we dissect this question a little further, communism appeals to people who have nothing, because it guarantees them something more than what they have at present. Capitalism guarantees you the opportunity of great wealth, but a larger likelihood of poverty and misery. That wasn't going so well for them, so it's easy to see how communism would appeal.  A monarchy is stable. If you've known almost nothing but war and foreign occupation, the concept of national stability would be appealing.  Finally, propaganda is incredibly powerful. Here I see little difference between the cult of Kim Il Sung and that of Castro, Perón, or Reagan, for that matter.

 

How did the Korean War and Cold War shape the two Koreas through 1994?

Again as others noted, this really starts with the end of WWII and the dividing of spheres of influence N/S, USSR/USA.  Howard Zinn's perspective on this is that the US had a large store of weapons they needed to use, and a large military force they wanted to keep going. So another war seemed like a good plan. Although most WWII soldiers would not go to Korea, their sons would, because of the glory of war and duty to their country. It was also the McCarthy era, so it was a good idea to go fight communism. It was great propaganda on the part of the Americans! I would imagine it was much the same from the Soviet perspective in terms of arms, if not soldiers, but the NKorean soldiers could easily be convinced this was the right thing to do, to reunite the peninsula under their "better" system.  I think this left a long legacy of divergent attitudes in Korea, where North Koreans were brainwashed into thinking one thing, and South Koreans another- one dependent on the Soviet Union, and the other dependent on the US.  Due to the US's superior potential for consumption, SK was able to become commercially and technologically developed again.  Although NK was also able to develop with the support of the USSR, their economy just wasn't as dynamic, and was unable to compete with the majority of the world.  All those corrupt leaders in SK had to have been propped up by the US for the US's advantage.  And China and Japan were trying to get their own countries together, so wouldn't be able to have the influence they would if this took place today.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

"... there is an assumption that women are better with numbers..." That's awesome. 

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

Hi everyone! My name is Kimberly de Berzunza and I teach middle school social studies in Spanish at Longfellow Spanish Immersion school in San Diego. Most years I teach grades 6-8, which includes Ancient World, Medieval World, and US History. Last summer I attended the USC US-China Institute's seminar "Gender and Generation in Asia" and learned a ton, and I'm really excited for this seminar on the Two Koreas! I have been trying for the past few years to learn more about Korea since it was added to our state framework and I know so little about it. I am fascinated to learn more about these two nations sitting side-by-side with the same roots and such vastly different outcomes today.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

My name is Kimberly and I teach middle school World History and US History in a Spanish Immersion program in San Diego. Last summer I attended Gender and Generation in Asia and it was extremely interesting and eye-opening.

Since I attended that seminar, I knew most of the information in the video, but this was a good refresher of the points most pertinent to the new topic. I am excited to learn more about North Korea and the relationship between the two Koreas, and to figure out how I can better connect Korea's ancient and medieval history to topics of today.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

Although I was not able to find Sweet Bean on Kanopy, I went ahead and paid for a rental on Amazon Prime. I'm glad I did; it was worth $5 for my husband and I to see it.

I will not discuss the plot, since Jonathan did already, but one thing I noticed was what Professor Yasar mentioned about Japanese film creating space with slower pacing and a use of empty space. Even though the examples we saw of this in class were from 1949, this was the case in Sweet Bean as well.  It did not make the film feel slow, however; it made it feel poignant and sweet.

For use in the classroom, I also would use it to show the Japanese attitudes toward leprosy, but also the attitude toward making something right for the pleasure of others, and of helping others and being part of a community. This film shows that everyone faces their own struggles, and must learn to overcome their difficulties in their own way, but also that community can help share in this burden and make life more enjoyable. We have been talking about this movie since we saw it- a sure sign of being worthwhile.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

I also was saddened, though not surprised, to learn of the Munson report. Just another time the US gov't ignores its own evidence in order to do what it wants.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

In my 7th grade World History class I teach about East Asia.  One unit is supposed to be: East Asia, 300–1300: China during Tang and Song, Spread of Buddhism, Korea and Japan, Quanzhou.  Much of the framework’s focus is on how Chinese imperial powers gained and maintained power over the people, and how Buddhism spread and changed across Asia.  I think the topic of Gender and Generation fits well here, as the hierarchical systems developed and spread from China to Korea and Japan in different ways.

 

We already study how the Tang dynasty returned to Confucianism and instituted a system of civil service examinations, so here I will introduce the five relationships in Confucianism and discuss how this hierarchy worked to control the people of China and to keep women in their place. At the same time, I would like to have students read (or watch video clips of) some of Confucius’ Analects and then the story of Mencius’ mother, and compare the gender and generational roles in each. I might introduce the writings of Ban Zhao, to show that not only men held these ideas. I will also be able to incorporate the ideas taught by Dr. Yan in Session 1, regarding the importance of human reproduction to the eternal nature of a family, to help students understand where these ideas come from and why they are important in Asia.  I’m sure a clip or two from the beginning of Mulan will help illustrate the importance of the ancestors and of marriage.

 

Professor Miyake’s discussion of Japan was one of the most useful for me, since it covers exactly the period of Japanese history that I teach. I am definitely going to look for some Manga or Animé versions of stories and more traditional woodblock versions of stories that will help students understand gender roles in feudal Japan. One thing I realized was that I have been wrong in my instruction on the Heian period, when some artistic forms I was teaching about, such as haiku or kabuki theatre, are actually from much later periods, so I also need to fix this. At the end of the unit I would like to bring some of these concepts and traditions into the present by looking at modern aesthetics of beauty (ie, androgyny) and some of the movie clips we saw from mid-century Japanese film, because I think they will help students understand how certain concepts have transcended time.

 

Finally, I was very interested in the early Korean history prior to Chinese influence, where Korean women had greater power.  It was only last year that I started teaching about Korea based on the updated History Framework, so the information about the three queens of the Silla reign was interesting to me and something I will need to work to incorporate.  I think it will be important for students to see how Korean women were more empowered than they might have thought, and I look forward to breaking down stereotypes.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

I've been wanting to visit the JANM for a while and today was just disappointed to not have more time to explore it fully.  Not only did I find it to be extremely interesting, but I thought it was attractively and efficiently designed and thorough.  Our docent Mas was great, giving just the right balance of his personal experience and that of others.

As David noted above, I find disturbing similarities to what is going on in our country right now, and don't really understand how not everyone does.  I have been to Manzanar, which is interesting and I recommend to all, but this museum was a lot more complete and the guide made it a lot more engaging, also.

Despite the cost and time for us to go to LA from San Diego, I think this museum would be worth it. It doesn't align with my curriculum, but my ELA colleague teaches "Farewell to Manzanar" to her 7th grade students and also the Executive Order and some other primary sources, and I am going to try to work with her to make a trip happen next year.  In any case, I want to go back with my family and more time.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

I enjoyed the Korean Cultural Center and think it was very interesting. I especially liked the model rooms and historical artifacts, but I'm sure my students would like the modern culture on the other side.  If I worked in LA I would take students there, but from San Diego it would be $1000 for a bus and 3 hours up and 5 back (I've taken students to the Getty and the Museum of Tolerance several times, and it always takes that.)  So I don't think it would be worth it for me from San Diego, as it isn't enough to justify the cost and time.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

I enjoyed learning about Qiu Jin and He Zhen as radical women working for change in Chinese society, and in rejecting Confucian teachings and traditions. While they both in their own way seem both brave and perhaps misguided, I think their ideas did influence the changes that followed in China, which means at least two women had infuence and agency in the end of Imperial China.  While I don't think by any stretch the Communist Revolution was a positive for China, I do think there were some positive outcomes, and women's achievement of certain rights is a part of that.

The flip side of that, of course, is to ask how much those achievements have truly taken root in people's hearts and minds, but after thousands of years those ideas do not change overnight, either.  Revolution aims to flip everything on its head and abolish everything we know to start fresh, but PEOPLE don't actually do that.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

It would be interesting to have your students compare these writings- the ones we read with the ones you mention. Read He Zhen, then Animal Farm (or an excerpt.)

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

The readings and lecture helped me reframe my thinking around the place of women in Chinese culture and perspective. As in other parts of the world, women in China have been traditionally thought to be oppressed, controlled, and limited in opportunities for choice in their own lives. However, I appreciated the examples of influence and agency reflected in, for example, the story of Mencius' mother, in the role of education in a woman's life, and in Daoism and the balance of yin/yang and the opportunity to live an independent life as a Daoist, rather than the tradionally expected life of wife and mother.

I try to present this to my students when teaching History already. For example, many think Islam oppresses women, yet many Muslim women would debate this. An example they might give is that the Q'uran, not just secular law, allows women to divorce for basically no cause.  Similarly, the American colonial period could be seen as oppressive to women- they couldn't vote in most cases, be lawyers or judges, etc. However, colonial American women were responsible for running the home and often large plantations or businesses, while husbands were away at war, working in politics, or working in other jobs such as lawyers and judges. So I saw a lot of parallels today in opportunity for agency and influence among traditional Chinese women and those of others.

I particularly found the conversation on Daoism to be enlightening, and yin/yang as equal parts of a whole, rather than separate entities.  This really helps me think about the value of the yin and of traditionally feminine attributes in connection to China as a counterbalance to the male yang.  I guess I could use this to push back on the tendency to automatically judge Chinese culture as oppressive to women.

[Kimberly de Berzunza]

Thank you!

[Author]

Posts