[Susie Suh]

I think it can be described as a meritocracy in terms of having opportunities to rise up in ranks based on your actions rather than purely luck of the genetic draw. However, I think it is a kind of meritocracy that requires a mindset different from our idea of a true meritocracy because one has to totally consume Communist party values in order to succeed. A very narrow yet straightforward path to the possibility of success, but also again of course having resources based on family/wealth helps. 

Also, being a meritocracy doesn't really mean much when so many are still at the whims of the select few. 

 

Definitely agree that there doesn't seem to be any fair system. We can only continue pursuing just systems, I suppose.

[Susie Suh]

It is quite interesting to see the facts and reactions to facts about the gender disparity in Japan in terms of the workforce and politics. Yes, in spite of the relative equality in terms of health and lifespan, women in Japan are still experiencing discrimination because of societal expectations and limitations. What's more intriuging for me to compare is how even in what we consider to be more gender equal places like the U.S. has shown to be vulnerable to those same effects depending on economic and political situations. For instance, with Covid-19, it is estimated that more women will be affected in terms of sacrificing careers and other opportunities to stay home and take care of their families. Women are always taking the brunt of these socio-economic shifts in terms of sacrifices to career for the sake of their home life. Emotional labor and household labor are expected to be carried on by them despite outside scenarios. 

I think it is prescient to have students analyze these global phenomenons in terms of gender/class inequality and compare them to the situation at home in the U.S. How different is it really? How secure are we in our comforts and exactly who gets to luxuriate in those comforts? 

It's a fantastic way of looking at our own history and how far or little we have come, using another country as the mirror to reflect our own actions. 

[Susie Suh]

The topic of comfort women is always a challenging one to confront because it brings up so many intersecting problems such as what is and isn't considered war crimes, retribution and reparations, and the ever changing social norms that are unique to each culture. I've always had a passionate concern for the issue of sex slavery and trafficking, and in the case with Korea and Japan, as angry as I can be about Japan always skirting making formal reparations or still glorifying people who committed war crimes, I think it is even more frustrating how Koreans will want to blame the Japanese for everything and not critically dissect their own culture that allowed these women to be susceptible to these situations and forced them to hide these truths due to shame. 

The way Korea and Japan has dealt the ramifications of war crimes can be compared to the inadequacy in which the US government has dealt with its own war crimes abroad AS WELL as with its dealings in domestic horrors such as slavery, jim crow laws, and Japanese-American internment camps (obviously we can continue taking this further into the present with the prison system and border detention camps). The cavalier way in which we have glossed over the disturbing nuances of the interstate slave trade in the 19th century can be compared to the way the Japanese have attempted to rewrite their own history regarding war crimes in educational textbooks. By pointing out the "other" story first and recognizing how wrong it is for the government to not take responsibility, I think it will make it all the more poignant when pointing the finger back at ourselves to see how we have been doing the same for over a century. 

[Susie Suh]

The history of modern Korea is so tied to U.S. Imperialism and its expanding global influence. From the Treaty of Portsmouth (which Teddy Roosevelt received a Nobel Peace Prize for facilitating) that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and allowed Japan to retain its interests in Korea, and onto the post-WWII politics that contributed to the splitting of North and South Korea, the US has had a huge impact on Korea's development in the last century. The Treaty of Portsmouth is a great example of studying something that is lauded on one side without evaluating the residual impact on others involved. As someone who is Korean and studied both Korean and US History in college, I have always found it interesting to see compare and constrast the multiple perspectives concerning U.S. involvement in the East Asia region. Of course, even within Korea, there is a diverse set of perspectives concerning these issues. 

[Susie Suh]

It is really interesting to compare how political leaders of various countries molded their constitution/ government structure after the founding of the U.S. The four leaders of the Meiji Restoration could be compared to the U.S.' Founding Fathers on both of their views on the role of government in society, their ideology in regards to foreign nations, and the founding principles of their nation for the people.

What wars were pivotal in establishing this new identity they were forging? This is a question that could be asked about many nations including the U.S., as the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 cemented the U.S.' founding and independence from Great Britain. The Civil War also cemented our nation's official stance on slavery, which was a huge shift into modernity for many of its people. Then of course the Great Wars (WWI and WWII) which also cemented the U.S.' role as a superpower on the global stage. The Japanese victory over China in the First Sino Japanese War allowed them to set their foundation for dominance in the East Asian region. Their success in putting down any internal military skirmishes from the independence movement in the Korean peninsula also allowed them to maintain and build their reputation as an imperial power. 

The debate to westernize and modernize Japan without losing their essential "Japanese-ness" is one to discuss as well. Who determines what the "essence" of a nation is? Can we apply this question to what it means to be "American?" Is there a permanent essence of a nation or is the essence changing with the ebb and flow of its population? Who does it benefit to protect these traditional yet man-made images of national identities? 

[Susie Suh]

The Japanese used Shintoism to create a sort of national identity just like Christianity did for many of the European/Western nations. I think this is a really interesting way to compare how we idolize figures in history as symbolic figures of the people's desires. For instance, within U.S. History, the Great Awakening was a way of creating a foundation of new American identity from pre-existing notions of life and religion. We could compare that to how Japan was able to utilize their traditional religion to create a new Japanese identity that would help propel them into the modern age.

[Susie Suh]

For U.S. History, I think this is a great way to compare the humiliations Britain would feel when the U.S. defeated them in the Revolutionary War as well as the War of 1812. They are both smaller countries across the ocean from the larger reigning power who managed to organize and prove themelves as leading the region into the modern age. 

[Susie Suh]

China's defeat to Japan in the Sino Japanese War was traumatizing because it signaled a shift in the power dynamic on the East Asia region. Losing their tributary country of Korea to Japan was humiliating, and it also foreshaded Japan's encroachment further into the mainland. Japan was a tiny country in comparison, and had managed to modernize its military to western standards at a rate that China could not match. The loss to the Japanese was also finalized a loss in faith and support from its own people, as China's turbulent century had already tested them to the limit in painful ways. 

[Susie Suh]

The U.S. has been part of many treaties that I believe students have been taught to view in a positive light. It would be an interesting activity to have students view the treaty from the opposite side and list the positives and negatives from the other parties' perspectives. In our global age, I think it is extremely pertinent for our students to be able to understand how our actions have affected our allies/enemies, leading to the present political/economic state.

[Susie Suh]

The Treaty of Nanjing heavily favored the British, giving them everything they had been wanting in regards to trade with China. They had access into Chinese ports past Canton, and it also allowed British citizens to be upheld to British law rather than Chinese law. Britain was also allowed rights that any other country might have in China. I think the Treaty of Nanjing is a great way for students to explore the power dynamics of treaties, and viewing it from multiple perspectives. It also gives students a better understanding of the later frictions between the West and the East.

[Susie Suh]

In the context of U.S. History, I can definitely use this example to compare with how the U.S. developed, especially when discussing the creation of the American financial system after the American Revolution. There is always a section on Alexander Hamilton's ideas of economic stability and growth, and how that conflicts with other founding fathers' ideals. Then again when we cover the Industrial Revolution, we can talk about the difference between industries growing vs quality of life being improved. We can go in depth into the lives of the factory workers and movement to urban areas vs the growth of various industries, also bringing into the picture the part about slavery in the South which helped these industries grow due to cheaper cost of goods being moved up. 

[Susie Suh]

Looking at how China and Japan tried to limit foreign influence and trade is one way to show multiple perspectives on the same event. Students can try to see from the Western side why they would want to open these countries up for trade and how they went about doing it, and then compare that to China and Japan's reasons for not wanting to let foreigners in. They can then do a comparison chart of positives and negatives for both sides, and analyze who benefitted most from subsequent events/actions. 

[Susie Suh]

Based on Emperor Qianlong's letter, it can be assumed that the Qing Dynasty viewed Great Britain with condescension. Emperor Qianlong uses flowery language to frame his disdain for Britain's suggestion of placing on envoy in Peking. He is emphatic that China has no need for anything Britain has to offer, and any gifts he received was accepted out of etiquette rather than want. He points out numerous times that China is the superior culture, and that Britain would do well to abide by the Qing Dynasty's customs and requests. 

[Susie Suh]

The Industrial Revolution is definitely an important aspect of studying U.S. History, and comparing it to the growth industries of other countries around the world will give students a broader perspective. I think it's pretty amazing for students when they realize just how young our country is compared to other countries/kingdoms. I like to stress the importance of immigration in shaping the American labor force and changing identity, as well as how much our country relied on slave labor to get to its place as an economic powerhouse. 

[Susie Suh]

In terms of the expenditure charts, I think that's a great, introductory way of looking at a society on a practical level. When we study civilizations, we look at what were the available resources and how people adapted to them. We talk about trade and commerce. Ultimately what we spend our money on or the things we barter items for show what our lifestyle is like. After studying a group of people, it would be a cool project to have students emulate these charts and create hypothetical charts of those people. 

[Author]

Posts