[Todd Rutley]

Captives in our own country,  My family’s story helps shape my view of the incarceration of Japanese Americans. 

On Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941, Aiko Yoshinaga, a 17-year-old Los Angeles High School student, was headed home from a party with classmates when she heard a shocking radio report: Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. Even at her young age, Aiko immediately realized that with a U.S. declaration of war against Japan, her Japanese immigrant parents, legally precluded from becoming naturalized citizens, would not just be considered aliens — they would be enemy aliens.

An American-born citizen, Aiko didn’t think she had cause to be concerned. She thought she’d be protected by the U.S. Constitution. She, along with my grandparents and parents, would soon find out how wrong she was. My father, then a 14-year-old freshman at Huntington Beach Union High School, later recalled: “People couldn’t or wouldn’t make the distinction between Americans who happened to have Japanese parents and people from Japan.” The Pearl Harbor attack intensified anti-Japanese sentiments that had existed since the first wave of immigrants from Japan arrived in the 1880s. Against the backdrop of decades of discriminatory policies, the Japanese American community was vulnerable as an appalled and angry nation considered anyone who looked like the enemy to be the enemy.

Even before the attack, high-ranking officials in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration and military leaders assumed that the Issei, or first-generation immigrants, as well as the Nisei, their American-born children, would be disloyal to U.S. interests in the event of war, despite intelligence reports that refuted those claims. Lt. Gen. John L. DeWitt, who would lead the Western Defense Command during the war, publicly said, “A Jap’s a Jap — it makes no difference whether he is an American citizen or not.” Paul Webb, then principal of Los Angeles High, determined that Aiko and the 14 other Nisei seniors would not be given their diplomas because “your people bombed Pearl Harbor.” By January 1942, Los Angeles Mayor Fletcher Bowron was among the West Coast mayors leading a racist chorus to remove the Japanese residents who lived in their areas.

Officials from the League of California Cities, heads of major industries — especially defense contractors and major agriculture companies — and journalists joined in. U.S. Rep. Leland M. Ford, whose district included Santa Monica, was the first member of Congress to lobby for the mass incarceration of “all Japanese, whether citizens or not.” He even advocated that they could prove they were truly loyal and “patriotic” by willingly placing themselves in detention. On Feb. 19, 1942, little more than 10 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, putting in motion the incarceration of about 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry — two-thirds of whom were Nisei American citizens — as a “military necessity.”Soldiers armed with guns and bayonets removed men, women and children from their homes in California, Oregon, Washington and Arizona. On short notice, they had to leave behind their businesses, farms, jobs, educations, even their pets. They were allowed to take only what they could carry. They had to sell, store or abandon the rest of their possessions. My father’s farming family had to walk away from several acres of celery that was ready to harvest.

My father, Hiroshi Kamei, would call it “my family’s greatest economic loss.” That spring Japanese Americans were sent to temporary detention facilities euphemistically called “assembly centers,” including one at the Santa Anita racetrack in Arcadia. After my mother, Tami Kurose, then 14, and her parents arrived there, they considered themselves fortunate to be assigned to live in barracks and not in horse stalls that reeked of manure. Later that summer, incarcerated Japanese Americans were transferred to one of 10 newly constructed sites, in desolate locations, under the jurisdiction of the War Relocation Authority. When Aiko realized how isolated the Manzanar prison camp was in the Sierra Nevada, she said she thought, “This is where they’re gonna shoot us.” She feared that “nobody would know the difference” if the government killed them all there. Aiko, my parents and their families, and the other incarcerated Japanese Americans would remain behind barbed wire, enduring harsh conditions, for the duration of the war.

Even as the war was nearing an end in 1944, FDR refused to allow the so-called camps to close until after he won reelection that November. For decades after the war, those who had been incarcerated focused on rebuilding their lives and suppressed their feelings about their wrongful imprisonment. My father recalled being “too busy” trying to recover from the incarceration’s devastating impact to be bitter. In the late 1960s, while living in New York, Aiko became involved in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, which questioned government actions. Inspired by the activism of others, she became motivated to investigate the causes of the incarceration. Using research techniques she developed, and working with lawyer and law professor Peter Irons, Aiko began combing through thousands of documents in the National Archives in the late 1970s. She would play a crucial role in documenting governmental misconduct that included never having a factual basis for suspecting Japanese Americans of disloyalty, knowingly perpetuating lies to justify the incarceration and covering up attempts by Justice Department officials to tell the truth.

The evidence formed the basis of the 1983 report “Personal Justice Denied,” the official government study into the imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II. It concluded that Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, but resulted from racial prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership. Its recommendations — an official apology to those who had been incarcerated and token reparations for those who were still alive — were not made until 1988, when the Civil Liberties Act was passed. In 1989, Los Angeles High sought to make amends, issuing Aiko and her Nisei classmates the diplomas they were denied in 1942. For her role in setting the record straight, the Japanese American National Museum honored Aiko with its Award of Excellence at its April 2018 gala, recognizing her service to democracy. Three months later, she died at the age of 93.

Today, as violence against Asian Americans has surged in what the California attorney general has called “an epidemic of hate,” the 80th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack is cause for anxiety among those of us who are viewed with suspicion or are not thought of as “American enough” due to our heritage and appearance. President George W. Bush once said about the incarceration, “Sometimes we lose our soul as a nation. The notion of ‘all equal under God’ sometimes disappears.” For the formerly incarcerated and their descendants, the annual observances of the Pearl Harbor attack provoke complex feelings. They have joined in honoring those who lost their lives during the Dec. 7 attack and in paying tribute to the Nisei soldiers who went on to valiantly demonstrate in combat the loyalty of Japanese Americans. But each Dec. 7 for the rest of his life, my father, who died at 79 in 2007, would brace for the anti-Japanese backlash that invariably occurred around each anniversary. He was always eager to see that date come and go.

Susan H. Kamei is a lecturer in the USC Dornsife department of history. She is author of “When Can We Go Back to America? Voices of Japanese American Incarceration during World War II."

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Mark Metzler, University of Washington, is a featured speaker on 12/4/2021. You can read about his courses here:  https://history.washington.edu/people/mark-metzler

Attached are some of his research papers. The last PDF is Andrew Gordon's history  of Japan (2003). 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Short answer. Self-defense and national honor.

From a Japanese perspective, a more important question would be “Why did the United States cut off oil supplies to Japan in mid-1941 knowing that this would undermine Japan’s economic and military power, likely leading to war?” Since Japan then relied on the US for 80% of its oil imports, the termination of US oil exports was an act of economic warfare that could not be tolerated.

Japan’s Actions Post-1850 Reflect Domestic Response to Foreign Threats

Under the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603-1868) Japan practiced national self-isolation and severely restricted international trade and travel. Despite closing its doors to trade, Japan was nonetheless aware of the increasing foreign military presence in Asia from 13 Western nations that included Great Britain, the USA, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Russia. All of these nations had imposed unequal treaties on China.

After Commodore Perry visited Tokyo in 1853-54 to force Japan to open trade with the United States, Japan realized that it must either modernize its economy and strengthen its military or risk the national humiliation and exploitation that China was experiencing during the Century of Humiliation (1839-1949). Faced with foreign aggression lead by the US, the desire for national self-strengthening was recognized and the result was the 1868 Meiji Restoration.

Lacking the natural resources to modernize – especially oil, coal, iron ore and other metals – Japan needed to expand its economic access and decided to follow the Western imperialist model. This resulted in the creation of the Empire of Japan and the subsequent annexation of The Ryuku Kingdom, Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria, followed by the 1937 invasion of China.   

The Japan-USA Conflict

Japan relied on imported oil and steel from the USA to modernize its economy and build up its military. The invasion of Manchuria and China would not have been possible without these critical supplies.

In early 1940, the US Navy Pacific Fleet base was moved from California to Hawaii in response to Japan’s perceived military threat as well as the American desire to pursue manifest destiny westward across the Pacific Ocean. The US also restricted oil exports to Japan in 1940. In the summer of 1941, US government officials completely stopped oil exports to Japan.

After the US stopped oil exports to Japan in the summer of 1941, Japan faced the hard choice of either retreating from its Asian empire or fighting the Western powers and the United States. Refusing to abandon its empire and be humiliated meant that the only other option was attacking the West and Western interests to preserve access to oil and raw materials to fuel its military & economy.   

Facing a shrinking supply of oil in December 1941, and fully aware that its empire needed oil to survive, Japan launched its invasions of Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies to obtain access to oil and to expand its empire.

Japan attacked US Navy ships at Pearl Harbor to prevent the US navy from limiting its military expansion in Asia. Japan never targeted the US civilian population or invaded the US. From this perspective, Japan did not choose to fight the USA: Japan chose to maintain its empire and preserve its national honor which required deterring the USA from its sphere of power and influence.

As Jeffrey Record concludes in his paper published by the US Army War College, “U.S. attempts to deter Japanese expansion into the Southwestern Pacific via the imposition of harsh economic sanctions…all failed because the United States insisted that Japan evacuate both Indochina and China as the price for a restoration of U.S. trade. The United States demanded, in effect, that Japan abandon its empire, and by extension its aspiration to become a great power, and submit to the economic dominion of the United States—something no self-respecting Japanese leader could accept.”

Japan did not “choose to fight the United States”. The US chose to impose crippling economic sanctions on Japan that threatened its national survival. After Pearl Harbor, the USA declared war on Japan and took the fight to Asia. This resulted in Japan’s defeat and subsequent de-facto military colonization by the USA. The effect of the victory over Japan was to extend the scope of US ‘manifest destiny’ and military power across the Pacific Ocean to Tokyo Bay.

References

Japan’s Decision for War In 1941: Some Enduring Lessons. Jeffrey Record, 2009. https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/2009/pubs/japans-decision-for-war-in-1941-some-enduring-lessons/

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1900_power.htm

James Bradley books: The Imperial Cruise, Flags of Our Fathers, The China Mirage. James Bradley’s father is one of the soldiers that raised the American Flag on Iwo Jima in 1945, and James has been writing about the Pacific War to commemorate his father and all that died in East Asia over the 1905-1953 period. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Register here: https://china.usc.edu/seminars/japans-economic-rise-and-americas-wartime-fears

USC professor Susan H. Kamei is a featured speaker. She is the author of "When Can We Go Back to America? Voices of Japanese American Incarceration During World War II".

Her book has received extremely positive reviews.  https://www.amazon.com/When-Can-Back-America-Incarceration-ebook/dp/B00C4GJ8U6/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Susan+H.+Kamei&qid=1637262705&sr=8-1#customerReviews

You can see a recent presentation by Professor Kamei on her book here: https://www.jcccnc.org/category/video-recordings/page/2/

You can also see on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsfxq8XEg24&t=26s

If you want to learn more about the Japanse internment, see the Japanese American Memorial Pilgrimages (JAMP) page: https://www.youtube.com/c/JAMPilgrimages/videos

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

FDR's order 9066 allowed any person or group to be removed from any specified areas and interned. It did not only target Japanese.

The DENSHO.org encyclopedia note that “In addition to the forced removal of Japanese Americans for purposes of confinement in War Relocation Authority (WRA) camps, the Justice Department oversaw the internment of more than thirty-one thousand civilians during the Second World War. This total included approximately 11,500 people of German ancestry and 3000 people of Italian ancestry, many of whom were United States citizens.”

Martin Niemöller’s 1946 Reflections on Persecution

The history of WW2 incarceration of ethnic groups, with limited public opposition and widespread support, reminds me of the prose by the German pastor Martin Niemöller. In 1946, he reflected on the silence of the German intellectuals in face of rising persecution. He wrote:

First, they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist

Then they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist

Then they came for the unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

What would Martin Niemöller say in the USA in 2021?

First, they came for the Natives.  I did not speak out because I was not one

Then, they came for the Latinos. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then, they came for the Chinese immigrants. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then, they came for the Japanese immigrants. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for Muslims. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for some professors. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for some students and I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

************

Might this be a way to teach students about the dangers of ethnic persecution & totalitarian government overreach?

References

https://encyclopedia.densho.org/German_and_Italian_detainees/

Enemies among Us: The Relocation, Internment, and Repatriation of German, Italian, and Japanese Americans during the Second World War. John E. Schmitz, 2021

DeStasi, Lawrence, ed. Una Storia Segreta: The Secret History of Italian American Internment and Evacuation During World War II. Berkeley: Heyday Books, 2001.

Fox, Stephen. America's Invisible Gulag: A Biography of German American Internment and Exclusion in World War II. New York: Peter Lang, 2000.

———. Uncivil Liberties: Italian Americans Under Siege During World War II. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers, 2000.

Krammer, Arnold. Undue Process: The Untold Story of America's German Alien Internees. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.

Martin Niemöller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

 

 

[Todd Rutley]

The December 4 seminar is titled “Japan’s Economic Rise and America’s Wartime Fears”.

America’s wartime fears of Japan were primarily caused by the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Another cause was the 1937 invasion of China that was well-publicized by the American “China lobby”, Henry Luce and Chiang Kai-Shek. The China lobby sought to raise support for the Chinese war against Imperial Japan.

Since the 1960s, American fears of Japan have steadily declined except for the trade war era of the mid 1980s-1990s. In 2021, Pew Research reports that 84% of Americans have a positive view of Japan.

While the wartime fears of Japan have evaporated, a new “China threat” has emerged that is causing considerable fear. In 2021, Pew reports that 79% of Americans have unfavorable views of China.

The wartime fears of Japan resulted in some 120,000 Japanese citizens and Japanese-American citizens being incarcerated. The current era is witnessing a large and sustained increase in hate crimes targeting all Asians. This is why I ask “Have wartime fears of Japan been replaced by fears of all Chinese/Asians today?”

The 1940s Japan fears resulted in mass incarceration of US citizens. Are current fears of the “China threat” resulting in the increased illegal actions against Asians that vary from random street violence to the targeting of ethnic-Chinese researchers by the FBI, DOJ, and other federal agencies? I think so, and the references support this view. Think about the evolution of the perceived “China threat” and actions from Wen Ho Lee to Meng Wanzhou. Is the US simply scapegoating Asians because of the unspecified fear?

The attached PowerPoint PDF contains polling data from Pew and Nielsen on American perceptions of Japan and China. The data show there is little Japan fear today, but there is certainly a fear or concern about China.

How to use polling data in K-12 classrooms

I have used polling data in my classes. I show the polling data, review the importance of the topic, and then ask students where they stand on the issues. This teaches about broad public opinion, current politics, and helps students form their own opinions. In my experience, students understand and like polling data far better than academic references.

References

https://china.usc.edu/calendar/hate-virus-combatting-prejudice-against-asian-americans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wx9VoZBSA

https://china.usc.edu/calendar/pandemic-panic-surging-violence-against-asian-americans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKtLJ0w8F7I

https://china.usc.edu/calendar/xiaoxing-xi-scientific-espionage-open-exchange-and-american-competitiveness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apNUglq3A3U

One-third of Asian Americans fear threats, physical attacks and most say violence against them is rising. Pew Research. April 21, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/21/one-third-of-asian-americans-fear-threats-physical-attacks-and-most-say-violence-against-them-is-rising/

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/06/30/most-americans-have-cold-views-of-china-heres-what-they-think-about-china-in-their-own-words/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/12/americans-views-of-asia-pacific-nations-have-not-changed-since-2018-with-the-exception-of-china/

Time to End the U.S. Justice Department’s China Initiative: A misguided effort at countering espionage needs a serious rethink. Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of law at Seton Hall University. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG_Y5QWLB0c&t=12s

Return of McCarthyism (Video)? United States Heartland China Association. https://usheartlandchina.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG_Y5QWLB0c&t=12s

https://www.justice.gov/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-and-compilation-china-related

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

I have tried to compare the Chinese political system under the CCP to the US system…but that approach did not fully engage students. Too “top down”, “too abstract”. OK, next I decided to teach about tangible policies under the CCP that were relevant to students and that showed differences between the Chinese and US situations.

The practical “bottom-up” examples I have used to compare China and the US are K-12 and STEM education, economic growth & development, covid-19 management, incarceration rates, and high-speed passenger rail (HSR).

In this approach I teach about important actions that China is making due in part to its political model and the political governance approach it has taken (in other words, under CCP leadership). See below an example of this teaching approach using HSR.

Why Is China Successful in High-Speed Rail?

1. China’s one-party political system promotes long-term planning
2. China seeks to be a global leader in rail technology. See “Made in China 2025” plan  
3. China’s top politicians are typically engineers, not lawyers
4. Politicians are rewarded for faster GDP growth, a top CCP priority
5. CCP understands that HSR is a “public good” (like education) that has benefits for users and non-users (less traffic, less urban space devoted to cars, cleaner air, better economy) 
6. The CCP understands how HSR helps economic development by promoting personal mobility and connectivity
7. China has always relied on trains for most inter-city travels because personal cars were rare before the 1990s, air travel was very limited, and buses were slow & uncomfortable. So, the conventional rail network was always preserved (US shut most passenger rail after WWII)
8. The HSR network is an example to China’s people and the world that the “China Model” of political governance and economic development can deliver superior results compared to the US model      

Why Is USA Not Successful in High-Speed Rail?

1. Many US politicians prioritize building prisons and border walls: Chinese politicians want to build domestic and international connections (see Belt and Road Initiative or BRI)
2. Republicans may oppose HSR because it benefits democratic cities in North-East & West Coast
3. Politicians are financially rewarded for favoring special interests, not the public good
4. The “special interests” are those that can make $$ contributions before the next election
5. The 4-year electoral cycle, with the last year often spent on fundraising and campaigning, promotes short-term fixes and actions rather than big infrastructure initiatives
6. USA’s political system promotes both short-term thinking & partisanship that increases social divisions, making agreement on big projects harder to achieve
7. USA’s top politicians are typically lawyers with little practical experience
8. Few US politicians understand that public transportation & HSR is a “public good” (like education) and think that it should be operated by the private sector or not-at-all
9. Most US politicians do not understand how HSR helps economic development.  Post WWII, US politicians closed many city streetcar systems, defunded inter-city rail, and then built highways so the affluent could escape the cities. (The LA example). Think about how this affected different social classes!
10. The lack of a HSR network is an example of the “USA Model” of political governance and economic development that favors short-term talk over long-term progress

Teaching Relevance & Questions

There are many reasons why HSR is successful in China and nonexistent in the USA. This should raise many questions.

Should HSR be supported by government or is that “communism”?    

Has the US relied too heavily on the private sector?  Or, has China relied too heavily on the public sector? 

Would HSR reduce US pollution and global warming by cutting automobile usage?

Can we learn something positive from the China model?

The attached PDF contains references and more background.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Modified Question: How might looking at Chinese & US incarceration rates help students understand fundamental differences between an authoritarian state (China) and a democratic one (the USA)?

Facts on Chinese & US Prison Incarceration Rates

In 2020, the Chinese incarceration rate was 121 per 100,000 with 1.71 million in prisons*. 

In 2020, the US incarceration rate was 639 per 100,000 with 2.094 million in prisons*.

The US incarceration rate is 5.1 times the Chinese rate! As a result, the US has a larger prison population despite having a population less than one quarter the size of China.

The US incarceration rate ranks #1 of 223 territories in the world. 

Questions

Would you expect democracies to have more or less incarceration than authoritarian countries?

Would you expect the USA to have a higher or lower incarceration rate than China?

Do you think it is good that the US incarceration rate is 3.8 times (380%) the global average? Or 580% the Chinese average rate? Is this progressive or repressive?

Why would a “free & democratic” society imprison so many people?

Why is the US prison population mostly comprised of minorities?  

Can the US legitimately criticize China for human rights violations when far more Americans are imprisoned as a share of the population than in China?

Based on incarceration rates, which country looks more authoritarian?

Continued in attached PDF, with charts and references... 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Modified Question: How might looking at the Chinese & US responses to Covid-19 help students understand fundamental differences between an authoritarian state (China) and a democratic one (the USA)?

UN-WHO Covid-19 Country Statistics For 1/3/2020-11/12/2021

China has had 127,018 confirmed cases with 5,697 deaths. China’s 2021 population is 1.447 billion or 433% of US population.

The US has had 46,501,534 confirmed cases with 752,960 deaths. The US 2021 population is 334 million or 23% of China.

The US has had confirmed cases at 366 times the Chinese level and deaths at 132 times the Chinese level (data not adjusted for population size).

Adjusting for China’s larger population, the US has had confirmed cases at 1585 times the Chinese rate as % population and deaths at 572 times the Chinese rate as % population.

Different National Responses

China was quick to impose domestic and international travel restrictions while promoting quarantining, social distancing, and contact tracing systems. 74% population is fully vaccinated.

American politicians were slow to adopt a national response and state/city level responses have varied widely. 58.7% population is fully vaccinated.

Questions

Which country was best organized to meet the Covid-19 challenge?

Which country best served public health?

Did China’s political system help it to effectively manage Covid-19? In what ways?

Did the US political system hurt Covid-19 management? In what ways?

Sources

https://covid19.who.int/region/amro/country/us

https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Question at 18:50: How might looking at the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) help students understand fundamental differences between authoritarian states and democratic ones?

Answers/Commentary

I suggest comparing and contrasting key features of the Chinese system with the US system to help students understand differences and also the similarities. I provide examples of this below.   

1. China’s one-party closed political system vs. USA multi-party, pluralist, open system  

China under the CCP is a one-party state: all positions of power are held by CCP members. No new parties can form to protest against the CCP. So, the CCP remains the permanent party of the Chinese government.

The USA has an open multiparty system where governments are formed by representatives of parties receiving the most electoral support. New parties can be formed. Control of government often changes after elections.  

Interpretation: US system is much more open. Other points of comparison?

Continued in attached PDF

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Short answer: The goal of faster national GDP growth can be achieved when labor force growth is slowing only by increasing GDP per capita growth.  So, if the goal is to reduce population growth while increasing national GDP, productivity per capita must increase.

Longer answer   

The family planning policies adopted after the 1960s were intended to reduce the birth rate because of concerns of Malthusian overpopulation – more demands for food than could be delivered by the domestic economy that would lead to mass starvation and political discontent.

The economic reform policies adopted after 1978 were intended to increase GDP per capita. That is to say “move people to jobs where their output was higher”. Example, Farmer Li produces annual GDP output of $500 on the farm, but she can produce output of $2000 per annum in the manufacturing industry making goods for export…which also earns needed foreign currency. So, moving a migrant laborer from farming to manufacturing could increase GDP. Moving 250 million internal migrants from the farms to the factories could and did have a huge positive effect on GDP.

In conclusion, the family planning policies started in the 1960s raised questions about the strength of China’s economic future. If population growth slowed and GDP per capita did not increase, China faced collapse. The economic reforms post 1978 showed that modernization and urbanization were the way to achieve both slower population growth and higher national GDP.

Conclusion

Mao was a revolutionary not an economist. He achieved the revolution but failed to modernize China because he was pre-modern in his thinking. Deng Xiao Ping understood economics and thus China grew rapidly after the 1978 economic reforms.

[Todd Rutley]

James Bradley, in his 2005 book The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War, alleges that President Theodore Roosevelt encouraged Japanese imperialism. Bradley cites a letter Roosevelt wrote in 1900 saying “I should like to see Japan have Korea. She will be a check upon Russia and deserves it for all she has done” (p.208 Imperial Cruise).

Bradley argues that President Roosevelt was motivated by deep racism, writing “Theodore Roosevelt had imbibed the Aryan myth. As a famous author he explained American history as part of the Aryan/Teuton/Anglo-Saxon flow of westering civilization” (p.34 Imperial Cruise).

Roosevelt considered the Japanese to be the “Honorary Aryans” of East Asia carrying on the Western mission of conquering (non-western) barbarism with (Western) civilization (See Kipling 1899, “The White Man’s Burden”)

Bradley cites the 1905 Taft-Katsura (US-Japan) agreement as evidence of US complicity in Japanese imperialism in East Asia. Since this agreement came only 3 years after the Anglo-Japan treaty, and appears to have had similar effect promoting Japan’s aggression, does this make the US complicit in the colonization of Korea by Japan?

Questions? Comments? What do you think?

Was the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance a model for the 1905 Taft-Katsura agreement?

Did the 1905 US-Japan Agreement promote Japan’s Attacks on Korea and colonization? 

What do you think of Bradley’s view that the US promoted Japanese imperialism from 1905 onwards which resulted in Korean colonization by Japan, the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the 1937 invasion of China, the creation of the Japanese East-Asian empire called by Japan the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, and that the entire Pacific War was the unintended consequence of Japan’s militarism that had been promoted by Britain and the US?

References

James Bradley books: The Imperial Cruise, Flags of Our Fathers, The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia. James Bradley’s father is one of the soldiers that raised the American Flag on Iwo Jima in 1945, and James has been writing about the Pacific War to commemorate his father and all that died in East Asia over the 1905-1953 period.  

Flags of Our Fathers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0AJ59vqzzg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imperial_Cruise

https://www.commentary.org/articles/jonathan-tobin/smearing-theodore-roosevelt/

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/121083

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Professor Jennifer Jung-Kim described the Korean war as being multi-dimensional and therefore complex (see video 2, 2:00-3:00). The conflict can be viewed as an internal civil war, a US-USSR proxy war, and an international war involving 23 countries overseen by the United Nations.

She emphasized that the Korean War is not over: the 1953 armistice was a truce and not a peace treaty, so the US is still technically at war with North Korea and the PRC.

This raises the question of why the war is not yet over?

One way to answer this question is to carefully review each of the dimensions of the war as noted in the lecture by Professor Jung-Kim. That is what follows. Read to the end and see the “surprise answer” to the question.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

Professor Jung-Kim describes the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance (video 1, 13:20) in which Britain agreed not to interfere with Japan’s actions in Korea, while Japan agreed not to interfere with British interests in Hong Kong.

This raises the question “Did the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance promote Japan’s attacks on Korea?”

If so, is Britain complicit in the colonization of Korea by Japan?

By extension, what is Britain’s responsibility for all Japanese imperialism in East Asia after 1902?

What do you think? Comments?    

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Todd Rutley]

In her interview with Korea.net, Professor Jung-Kim talked about the Korean revival of traditional clothing. This sparked a possible teaching idea to engage young students, students that are typically far more interested in fashion than old wars from the 1950s.

Korea.net: In one of your video lectures for KCCLA titled, “Korean Language & Culture Series (Ep.7: Korean Attire),” you mention that BTS’s Jungkook likes wearing Saenghwal hanbok or “lifestyle” hanbok (Korean attire). Jungkook wearing hanbok has increased hanbok’s popularity in Korea and worldwide. I have noticed that Koreans tend to don hanbok during special events rather than in their daily lives. When and what influenced this shift in clothing preferences in Korea?

Jennifer Jung-Kim: “Whereas formal hanbok can be uncomfortable to wear, the “lifestyle” hanbok is more comfortable, more affordable, and also show pride in Korean culture. Jungkook really brought a lot of interest to this style of hanbok, and some retailers reported that their websites crashed and they quickly sold out because of the interest that Jungkook has generated.”

Traditional clothing has also made a comeback amongst young Chinese where the style is called Hanfu (汉服). See attached

The clothing revival has also sparked a Chinese-Korean online controversy over “who invented these styles & who is copying whom”.

Questions

What does the Chinese & Korean revival of traditional clothing signify?

Does wearing traditional clothing signify rising cultural & historical pride?

Does it suggest rising nationalism?

What does the China-Korea controversy over clothing mean? Does it reflect the traditional power relationship between China and Korea?

Is traditional clothing considered “material culture”?

Would you teach about this topic? Think about it and leave your comments below  

References

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-08-07/Hanfu-The-controversies-behind-the-new-trend-IWhcJDcH9S/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanfu.  

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Author]

Posts