Paul+Choi+Reflections+10

Write a two paragraph reflection: Should Korea and China have a say in what Japan puts into its textbooks?
Both logically and ethically, China and Korea possess the right to have a say in how Japan manages the flow of information on textbooks. Textbooks are the most fundamental and basic form of information students go across during their school lives. Therefore it is directly related to the future generations’ knowledge, which should not be leading towards any flaws. Japan might call their organization of information in history textbooks as their own business, but it is not – history is fact that involves many foreign affairs, which is also linked up to reputations of a nation. Japan took part and is fully responsible for its past; however, they are not accepting the truth, which is why Korea and China should use their voice to fix the problem.

From the articles on this matter including Japan’s Sins of Omission, many evident were shown on how Japan omits and censors information that is hurtful to Japan’s pride and reputation off the textbook of students. This action is caused by the heavily biased and pride mind of the current generation in Japan, and is doing no good to Japan’s reputation or the foreign affairs. If the textbook information are skewed or omitted in such manner in the future, the generation that comes after the current generation will carry the same mentality as well. The distortion of history and Japan’s embarrassing deeds is not only an insult to the victims in the past, but also a selfish manner to show to the world as a nation. Therefore, Japan deserves to be targeted to many arguments and complaints by Korean and China.

===Read today's article on Nogun-ri and write a half page reflection explaining how this is the same or different from Korea-Japan controversy. Note how the perceptions of the Koreans and Americans involved in this incident differ. Do you still have the same opinion about compensation? Why? If you believe this situation is different, how is it different?===

Clearly, both the Nogun-ri massacre and the Korea-Japan controversy involved many civilian casualties and deaths. However, there is a distinct line between the two events, for they were different in scale at first hand, and had variables such as intentions and the post-actions that made the two actions so different. First of all, the Nogun-ri massacre was an incident where miscommunication and the atmosphere of war was directly related. The American soldiers who were involved in the situation all provided fogged witness of what exactly was going on at the time, and even the command from the higher officials could not be clarified. Not only that, the Americans opened up all the facts about what had happened at Nogun-ri, and even made sincere apologies, and offered material compensation for the nation and the victims. This makes the Nogun-ri massacre a much smaller incident in history of war, and an easier event for the citizen of Korea to accept. On the other hand ,the Korea-Japan controversy was a one-way occupation where Japan yielded power over the Korean nation. In the process, some despicable violence was exercised, and endangered many civilians' lives. Already, the scale of these two event is distinguished by the span of time which the event occurred - Nogun-ri was 'an' incident, where the Korea-Japan controversy continued for nearly four decades. Also, the Japanese governent, although some apologies are made, yet remain reluctant of accepting what they had done in the past. Japan was unprofessional in this aspect, since such reluctance can directly lead to its reputation in other nations. A nation needs more than just a formal apology for recovery of reputation in the country it had harmed directly. Japan's action of not admitting the past had only made the grudge towards Japan in Korea worse. In my opinion, Japan's deeds during the war are at a level where it is ethical to admit and apologize, for it had scarred the Korean history directly. It would be most logical and wise for Japan to admit the past and make sound compensation for the war crime they have committed in Korea and recover their worsened reputation.

__RON place in History__

 * 1) What is a massacre, holocaust, and genocide?**
 * Massacre** is action of slaughtering a mass of people indiscriminately.
 * Holocaust** is mass killing of a certain group of people with a governmental plan behind.
 * Genocide** is a deliberate killing of a massive group of people, especially those who belong to specific religion, ethnicity and nation. Genocides are usually very systematic.

I personally think that The Rape of Nanking is the closest to being a massacre, since it involved a ridiculous amount of people's lives lost without purposes. I personally think it's closer to being a genocide than to a holocaust, because the Japanese soldiers only killed the Chinese people who lived in the area of Nanking; the foreigners were left mostly unharmed.
 * 2) Was "The Rape of Nanking" a genocide and/or holocaust?**

Some people refer to it as a massacre because the Rape of Nanking was a massive killing bloodbath that didn't really involve justifications. Some people say it was due to the heat of battle, but people were still ruthlessly attacked and killed outside of battles. It suits the definition of massacre; killing with no certain objectives or reasons.
 * 3) Why do you think some refer to it as a massacre?**

At some point, the name that we ascribe can have less of significance. However, in terms of assigning names such as the Holocaust, which is a sensitive term, we should be very careful. Also, if we assign the name that makes the event seem belittled in scale, it shouldn't happen. Therefore, although the level of significance can vary at times, the name should not be either amplifying or belittling the brutality and the importance of the incident.
 * 4) Does the term we ascribe (assign to) really matter?**

We study such disturbing and horrific events, because it is an occurance in history, and that we should learn from it in order for humans stop from such things happening again. Also, it involves emotions and foreign knowledge, so events such as this should be known globally, so that no more controversy or attempts of corruption can occur (corruption in terms of changing the informations and connotation of the event).
 * 5) Why do we study such horrific events?**


 * Q. Write a short reflection of what you learned from these readings. With the benefit of hind site and knowledge of China and Japan, would Korea had been better off if it had “opened up to the west.”**

After reading several sources about the western influences casting its shadow over the Asian nations, I noticed the significance of the little decisions each nations made that determined the country’s future. Many of these sources explained the turn of events in a cause-and-effect form, indicating that one action caused a responding reaction.

Having the reflection and the information in mind, I think Korea might have had the potential to develop faster if it had opened up to the west. In case of Japan, who opened up to the west way faster than Korea, was able to extract benefits from the west and used them to develop their own technology. If Korea had also done so, Korea might have been on the same level as Japan back then. Also, I thought the reason behind persecuting the western influence was way too minute compared to the potential benefits Korea could have achieved through the west. Keeping tradition could have been moved to the next priority (not meaning that it should be abandoned), and absorb the western culture into benefit. Therefore, I thought Korea could have been better off in the past only if it had opened up to the west just like how Japan did.


 * The Rape of Nanking Introduction Reflection**

As I was reading through the introduction of The Rape of Nanking, I could sense that the author is switching back and forth between posing an objective, non-biased stance to somewhat opinionated stance. This not only signified how the author was fond of the content in the book, I also knew that the incident – The Rape of Nanking – itself was a terrifying event to many people that it is impossible to evoke neutral feelings. The author put a lot of emphasis upon the fact that The Rape of Nanking, although not as much known to the world as other incidents such as The Holocaust, is an incident equally, or even more cruel event in history. Many statistics and clarifications with numbers, such as the number of deaths in innocent people, the number of corpses lying around in the street added the seriousness of the event before readers started reading the story. As for me, it was enough to give me a slight shock, and inform me that Rape of Nanking another case of extreme violence in history.

Other than giving the readers basic information about the Rape of Nanking itself, I had a feeling that the author was trying to achieve a goal through the book – to grow public awareness of the Rape of Nanking, and to prevent history from repeating itself in any ways. During the introduction, the author directly states that she is frustrated with the fact that Japanese people are trying to erase this incident from public’s minds, for it can easily hurt their reputation. However, the author saw the problem, and speaks in a tone that sets out a mood of ‘teaching’ or ‘setting things right.’ Lastly, towards her conclusion, the author mentions a couple of quotes and sayings that says if history is not known, it is likely to repeat itself – which the author would definitely not like in case of The Rape of Nanking.

The incident – The Rape of Nanking – can be considered a discomfort to the history of mankind, just like how Japan reacts to its own history. However, just like how author had made her point, I think The Rape of Nanking is definitely an event that should be known widely, both for the global awareness of this tragedy, and in order to prevent history from ‘repeating itself.’