[Sara Newman]

During the lecture, someone mentioned the telephone booth to nowhere that was erected in Japan after 3/11 to create a way for people mourning to gain a sense of closure. I’d heard about that previously on a This American Life Episode, and hearing it mentioned again made me wonder about how children in Japan who endured the ordeals of World War II or the 2011 natural disaster healed or are healing from the trauma they experienced. If, because of cultural expectations, the adults were unwilling to talk about these issues and their reactions to them with their children, how do the children process these events? 

 

Additionally, I know that epigenetic science has shown that children whose parents were affeted by the Holocaust or 9/11 suffer from intergenerational trauma even if they weren’t alive during the event itself. I wonder beyond the effects of radiation exposure how children could be genetically or emotionally affected by their parents’ experiences of these traumatic events.

 

[Sara Newman]

I found the lengthy Japanese work day especially perplexing given the point that Professor Tsutsui made about prominence of of stakeholder capitalism (as opposed to shareholder capitalism) in Japan. If the companies are so committed to protecting their employees, why don't they take greater efforts to ensure the meantl health and wellbeing of their workers as well as their economic status? It was interesting to hear that companies wanted to offer worker protections, ehalthcare, and schools for the children of workers, but sustainability of the workforce seems like it should be a greater priorirty for businesses. I've heard a lot abotu the high suicide rates and even work-induced deaths in Japan, so how does Japan's seemingly altruisitc buisiness model deal with this? 

Additionally, if many women became wholly economically dependent on their husbands, does this lead to high rates of domestic abuse in Japanese households? I'd imagine that without the ability to leave a marriage, women would be more likely to have to endure neagative martial conditions. 

[Sara Newman]

I was really interested in what Professor Katada said about the roles of and expectations for women in Japanese society. She mentioned that because men are expected to work for 16 hours a day (and Saturdays too), most women--even college educated women--leave the work force after having kids. It makes sense that with one parent working so many hours, it would be important for the other parents to be more readily availible to care for and support the children. But, this makes me wonder what's expected of/for women from the time that they finish high school until they get married (around age 30ish according to Professor Katada). Are many women still pursuing college degrees and professional careers in the decade between high school graduation and marriage? Or, given the fact that women aren't expect to have long-term careers, are women pursuing mostly jobs that don't require college degrees?

[Sara Newman]

Hi Lizette, 

I'm glad you brought up the ambigous/unresolved boundary between North and South Korea. I found it really interesting to hear that not only is the dimilitarized zone remains a point of contention between the two countries, but also that it has become an accidental nature preserve. After class I did a bit more research on the topic and read that, "The same forces that prevent humans from moving within the nearly 400 square miles of the DMZ encourage other species to thrive. Manchurian or red-crowned cranes and white-naped cranes are among the DMZ's most famous and visible denizens. Nearly 100 species of fish, perhaps 45 types of amphibians and reptiles and over 1,000 different insect species are also supposed to exist in the protected zone."

This reminded me a lot of the situation that emerged in Russia after the Chernobyl explosion where human misfortune actually lead to a rare opportunity for animals and plants to grow within human interference. I think it's really beautiful that when huamns created these crises that were too big for them to manage, nature actually benefited in surprising ways. I know that most of their finiings about the animals and plants that have been growing in this unexpected sanctuary is vague, but I'm curious about how possible good could be emerging from the ongoing tension in the DMZ. 

[Sara Newman]

Hi Andrew, 

In looking back over your comment. I am really interested in why, as you mentioned, Japan isn't more encouraging of immigration to increase the number of young people living there. I know that the native-born population of the U.S. is both aging and decreasing, and it's only because of the immigrants coming to the U.S. and having children here that the U.S. isn't facing a similar population crisis. I know that when my ex was living in Korea, he said that many Korean people there were very warry of non-Korea and especially non-Asian people among them (both residents and tourists), so I wonder how the attitudes of the Japanese population as well as the Japanese governemnt each contribute to the number of immigrants joining Japanese society. Additionally, I wonder how attitudes (and policies) differ in their treatment of people from other Asian countries compared to those towards people from other parts of the world. 

[Sara Newman]

I found the final paragraph of if the millions of "Japan's Economy, at War with Itself" really interesting:

" Japanese now trapped in unproductive jobs are given better opportunities, Japan could enjoy the kind of renaissance now occurring in China and South Korea. If the role of women changes as fast in Japan as it has in China and South Korea, then the flood of highly educated women into productive jobs could further augment this boom." 

Recently Japan has become the new Reykjavík, replacing the Icelandic city as the most hip/popular vacation spot. The text was written in 2002, so I don't know much how Japan's economic status has changed in the past 17 years, but for most travelers and travel publications I know of, Japan, far more than China or South Korea, is among the most desired destiations for Western travelers to visit. I wonder if the influx of visitors helped change the job availability and/or gender roles in Japan, or if changes to these two things were important in inspiring the current wave of tourism. 

[Sara Newman]

I found "Japan's Economy, at War with Itself" both somewhat hard to follow, as I lack much background knowledge about global economics, but I also found it interesting how the article traces the rise and fall of Japan's cultural and economic power in the aftermath of WWII. One thing that was odd to me is that although the article talked a lot about how Japan's banking, employee-focused job force, and lack of miltary all shaped Japan in various ways, the article didn't really talk about how Japan's geography places certain limitations on it. I know that Los Angeles has the 10th biggest economy in the world, and that makes sense because the city is contasntly growing and expanding. Japan, however, as a small island nation is limited in the ammount of space it can expand into. I wonder if when Japan was having such economic success in the 1980s if people started moving into and inhabiting previously uninhabited parts of Japan. Specifically, when the article mentioned the massive expansion of Japan's construction industry, I wondered how Japan, as a small island nation approached geographical expansion. 

[Sara Newman]

I was really struck by the following passage in "Growth Versus Success": 

"Although Japan's relationship with the United States is not now—and has never been—that of full ally, American patronage has been crucial to Japanese economic development. After the war this patronage more than compensated for disruptions and hostility to Japanese by other Asians, for the shrinking silk market, and for the loss of the imperial economy. It is hard to imagine what Japan would be like today in the absence of this patronage, particularly in the pivotal years of the early 1950s."

I remember learning that Germany's economic collapse and resentment at what was taken from them in the aftermath of their World War I defeat were part of what primed Germany for the Nazi ascention. I wonder if the United States' decision to conduct so much business with Japan that they became crucial players in the rebuilding of the Japanese economy after the war was in any way a precautionary measure to avoid what happened with Germany between the World Wars being repeated in Japan. Or, is more that American military members saw things in Japan that they liked during the war, and that lead to the increased purchasing of Japanese goods? Or it that America wanted to ensure that they made capitalism more enticing to the Japanese than the Communism that the Soviet Union was promoting in other parts of Asia at the time?

[Sara Newman]

Hi Kurt, I really appreciate your comment since I know that too often I think of Japan through a Western lens. Since most of what I'd learned about Japanese history in the past was in the context of World War II, my natural inclanation is to build on what I already know rather than to focus on ideas that I have little context for. But your point about how Japan was reinveting itself with the Meiji Transformation and what followed is interesting. In the readings, I was surprised that The Five Injunctions provided such a concrete set of reasons for why many Japanese people moved to Hawaii. I was also really interested in how a significant motivator in Japan's desire to reform itself was its desire to convince Western countries to revise unequal treaties from the past. Clearly Korean and China had many militaristic reasons to resent Japan, but I wonder how Korean and Chinese people felt about Japan's desire to model itself off Western countries. Did they find it insulting? Did they take note and become inspired/pressured by Japan's desire to Westernize? 

[Sara Newman]

As I was completing the reading about World War II, I was aghast by the descriptions of Japanese brutality against the Chinese and Korean people. I had known about the extreme hostility between Japan and Korea, but I hadn't read about the Rape of Nanking or the use of comfort women in very much detail until this course. 

What was so suprising to me is how the different countries invovled in World War II justified their actions. Just a few paragraphs after the text talks about Japanese violence and dehumanization, the text mentions that, "Japan claimed to be liberating Asia from colonial powers" and that "Japanese soldiers saw themselves as spiritually superior to the materialistic West; they were hard and high-minded, whereas British and Americans were soft." I know that in many wars countries delude themselves into thinking their larger goals justify acts of violence and cruelty along the way, but this reading made it sound like because of the way their attacks were carried out, greed and national pride were the only possible things that could be motivating Japanese expansion into other parts of Asia. 

Could the Japanese really have seen their military victories as signifiers of superiority when they knew exactly how those battles were won? Also, today Japan is thought of as being such a sophisticated, orderly society? How much of this is a relatively new phenomenon, and how much of what we currently think of as Japanese culture was around during World War II and before?

[Sara Newman]

A few weeks ago I went to an Evening for Educators event that LACMA hosted on animals in Japanese art. The opening lecture was delivered by the man who'd currated the exhibit and he spoke about the way that a wide range of animals--from roosters to rats to dogs to dragons--frequently appeared in Japanese art. The currator also mentioned how as religious ideas in Japan shifted, many paintings and scultures of animals that were initially created to be at Shinto shrines were reinterpreted to try to better fit with Budhist beliefs. 

Having learned a bit about the overlap between Buddhism and Shintoism in Japan and the way that these two separate religions were often considered coplimentary rather than opposing, I was interested to read about how during the Meji period, the government was staunchly opposed to Budhism and instead tried to make Shinto the relgion of the state. Furthermore, it was intetesting to read about how smaller, rarer religions like Omoto-kyo also emerged during this period as Japanese people were deciding whether to follow the state-sanctioned shift from Buddhism to Shinto, to maintain a religious practice that honored both traditions, or to adopt the Christianity of the West. 

[Sara Newman]

Hi all, 

I'm looking forward to reconvening on Monday to continue our seminar. Since we've been out of class for a while, I decided I want to spend some time tomorrow working on the course's movie requirement. I love Harukui Murakami's writing, so I was thinking of possibly watching Norweign Wood (https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B008C6MPOI/ref=atv_dl_rdr) or Burning (https://www.amazon.com/Burning-Ah-YOO/dp/B07L3WKLH8/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=burning+movie&qid=1571456506&sr=8-1), two films that are based on his writing. But Nobody Knows (https://www.amazon.com/Nobody-Knows-Yuya-Yagira/dp/B001F70XA4) also sounds really good. Has anyone seen any of these films? Or does anyone have an idea of another Asian film they've seen and loved or are looking forward to watching for the course? 

Thanks!

Sara

[Sara Newman]

I really enjoyed this afternoon’s historical encounter because it made me feel motivated to thoroughly read and take notes on the readings because I knew that I’d be publicly held accountable. I’ve done debates in class before, but the relatively informal nature of this historical encounter made it feel more fun and energizing than intimidating. I liked how we worked in teams so that we didn’t have to have answers to every question asked and so that collectively we could refute the other team’s ideas. Additionally, knowing that we’d have to respond to our peers’ criticisms and ideas made it easier to stay engaged and actively listening to the whole hour-long conversation. I think this sort of historical immersion/ loose debate would work well to get students to consider the concerns of segregationists, white modernists, and Civil Rights protesters before reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

[Sara Newman]

I was really interested in Professor Jung-Kim’s comments about the role of Christian missionaries--specifically Horace Underwood-- in sparking the development of both secular and religious schools in Korea. It was interesting how she explained that the work of foreign missionaries in the Christian school movement inspired non-Christian people in Korea to begin developing secular schools that would also allow Korean people to have access to Western-style education. Part of what surprised me is that I’m used to hearing stories about how white, Christian missionaries in Africa and North America often disrupted local cultures and traditions and spread diseases that harmed local people and ways of life. In contrast, the way she talked about Christians establishing gender-specific schools and eventually universities made it seem like Christian missionaries caused far less harm in Korea. I was interested if there are more negative impacts that Christian missionaries had in Korea had that we simply didn’t have time to discuss today. Also, because now a quarter of all Korean people identify as Chstiatian, I was wondering if there any elements of Korean culture that made it such a fertile breeding ground for Christianity.

[Sara Newman]

I found the collection of primary source documents in "Ridding China of Bad Customs" really interesting. The argumentation style for the arguments about footbining and an end to indentured maids reminded me a lot of the types of arguments presented by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and other American suffragettes. I was especially interested in the suggestion from the anti-footbinding society that, "By helping other people's daughters learn, one also helps one's own wife because only after women's education has been popularized can the foundations of a marriage be solid." I really like how the society draws the connection between social pressure to mutilate one's body to ensure marriageability and family status and access to quality education for people regardless of sex. I was really excited to see that over a century ago, the authors of the text were arguing that men would benefit from having more educated wives and that a marriage of greater education equality and personal capacity leads to greater marital happiness for both parties. This seems to be a very logial yet progressive idea. How common was this idea or other ideas about the importance/value of women's education at the time?

[Author]

Posts