Julian

1) Finish up Scholar and Knowledge “My words are very easy to understand and very to put into practice,” but “Straightforward words seem paradoxical…”

What does this mean? How does it come into play in The Tao of Pooh with regard to scholars?

I think it means those words are very natural and similar to what people have been going through that they can understand easily. In The Tao of Pooh, It was mocking the scholars because Scholars often use hard words to feel superior, which cause readers to get confused. “My words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice,” refers to the simplicity of Taoism compared to the inconsistency of Confucianism. The “straightforward” words of scholars “straightforward” are confusing because they do not even know what they are talking about. Their knowledge does not come from experience but are obsessed with looking superior than others in terms of knowledge unlike Taoism which is open to everyone.

2) Read the poem page 30. What does Pooh seem to think about scholars? How does that relate to the Taoist view of knowledge?

Pooh thinks that scholars confuse people with their boasting of knowledge. Also, Pooh thinks that the matters scholars talk about are insignificant. Scholars blame ignorance and obsess on gathering information. They rely on their brain yet disregard their inner nature which is the most important. Scholars gather knowledge for the sake of knowledge. In the Tao of Pooh, the author calls these scholars the desiccated scholar.These scholars, while showing off their large amount of knowledge, are actually impractical and focus too much on the past that they forget the present. Taoist view gaining knowledge for knowledge’s sake as unnecessary and against the flow of nature. They weigh importance on experience as it is practical.

3) 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.”

From these readings, I learned how the three East Asian countries come out of their closet and accept, all of them by force, Western ideas. While the three nations traditionally remained isolated and inhibited Western ideas from flowing in. However, as the Westerners possessed stronger military force with advanced weapons, Japan and China were forced into opening their ports. Korea, while staying isolated until the 19th century, became vulnerable to fight off Japan and became annexed into Japan in the early 20th century. Through these readings, I could see the Imperialism trend of the late 19th century and how nations’ reactions to the early Imperialist nations determine the future. Also, the clash of traditional and novel ideas were apparent in this period when people were split into two groups whether to accept Westernization or not.

On the matter of Korea opening up to the west earlier, I think it would not have prevented Japanese Imperialism on Korea. Japan's military force during the time was frightening as they managed to defeat both China and Russia. Both countries, using modernized military from much earlier on, failed to match the force of Japanese. Therefore, despite opening to the west earlier and exploiting new weapons, the power of the Japanese would have proved too strong for the newly employed Korean soldiers to fight.

Rape of Nanking Reflection

Rape of Nanking was a horrific massacre which as a historian describe it "if the dead from Nanking werer linked to hands, they would stretch from Nanking to city of Hangchow, spanning a distance of some two hundred miles. Their blood would weigh twelve hundred tons..." the death toll of the slaughter is outstanding. Without clear reason, Japanese military murdered so many men comparable to the Nazis holocaust. After reading this introduction, I came to question the humanity and lean toward the idea that humans are necessarily evil. What would have justified the Japanese involved in this tragedy to commit such evil deeds? As the introduction puts it, this book is " to understand the event so that lessons can be learned and warning sounded.” Even after the Rape of Nanking, the Nazi's holocaust occured and throughout history since the tragic event in China, senseless massacre happened. Through history, people have to understand the cruelty that humans bear and the capability of men to act on extreme malice. According to George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Every man is capable of committing evil and while many worry about natural disasters like the global warming or the destruction of ozone layer, if the world is ever to end, humans are the closest to causing apocalypse.

Chapter 1 Reflection

Chapter 1 describes the motivations behind Japan's vicious act against the Chinese. Japan's desire to become an Imperialist nation and expand their territory over the world. They feared that powerful Western countries will take over the sovereignty of Japanese government, thus justified the Japanese Imperialism as a tool to avoid becoming subject to Western Imperialism. Nanking was the early destination of the beginning of Japanese expansionism relying on extreme nationalism, like the kamikazes during the World War II who performed suicide missions. The evil deeds of the Japanese military were gruesome as they forced Chinese fathers to rape their daughter, sons to mothers, pierce tongues and hang them. Moreover, the Japanese buried half of the body of some people and let them be devoured by German Shepherds. In a few weeks, the death toll in the Nanking massacre reached possibly up to 350,000,

Observation 1. Japan decides to become Imperialistic in order to defend themselves from the mighty and unjust Western nations that bear no morality. Since there is only the choice of being Imperialistic or becoming colonized, Japan justifies their motif to become expansionist as a self defense clause. 2. As a process of becoming expansionist, the Japanese government reckons the importance of loyalty especially among soldiers and sailors. To become an Imperialist nation, nationalism is a key substance to form the strong base of the nation. Japan believed that thus the faithfulness of soldiers and sailors was necessary. 3. Japan suffers from the conflict between right and left wings during the transition of 1920-1930. By the 1930s, right-wing parties become more intense in their activities and they clash with the socialist groups.

Questions 1. How did the Sino-Japanese War change the concept of China by the Japanese so much? How big is the power of a single war or the Japanese government’s propaganda and appeal to the nationalism?

2. How were the Japanese army able to defeat the Chinese with such ease? Despite possessing a more modern military, China’s army definitely consisted of a larger troops yet they failed to match Japan and what else may be the cause for it besides the modern basis of Japanese army?

3. Why are soldiers and sailors specifically mentioned to display loyalty. Soldiers must maintain faith to their nation to protect it but why are sailors mentioned in the precepts?

Why do you think the Japanese were so cruel? How can ordinary Japanese soldiers commit such atrocities(cruel acts)?

Japanese traditionally follows confucianism and the core belief of respect towards men. Nowadays, as described in the book Korea unmasked, Japanese are perceived as polite people. However, seeing the cruelty involved during the early 20th century, one can hardly believe Japan to be such a moral nation. Specifically, the massacre in the Rape of Nanking was beyond humanity and the evil deeds performed by the Japanese are unspeakable.

While Japanese culture are generally considered to be moral, the culture played a huge role in the atrocities committed by the Japanese army. In fact, the traditional Samurai culture known as the Bushido was a driving force behind the cruel actions of Japanese. Since bushido established a mind on the Japanese soldiers that their life is like a leather when duty is like a mountain, they considered the "lowly" Chinese people's life as worthless. Thus, the Japanese soldiers did not feel guilty for their crimes.

Also, the education played a huge role in the Japanese considering Chinese as degraded people. The book says that Japanese were told that Chinese are less than humans from a young age. In such educational environment, for the Japanese soldiers, killing Chinese felt as insensitive as killing an ant. Also, their value of loyalty above death contributed to the senseless murder acts committed by the Japanese. Since their own lives were unimportant, how could the lives of the lowly Chinese be any important? Moreover, the Chinese surrendered to Japanese military so easily that it enraged the loyalty-oriented Japanese.

Rape of Nanking was a massacre not a deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. RON was not orchestrated by the Japanese government but driven by the desire to murder by the ill-willed Japanese soldiers. No evidence indicates Japanese government’s direct involvement in the massacre. While Nazi’s holocaust was authorized by the German government and happened in an orderly fashion, RON was more of a chaos. As Merriam-Webster dictionary puts it, a massacre is “an act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.” This description fits in to the case of RON when majority of the Chinese army left the city and the left Chinese soldiers surrendered. The victims were helpless and unresisting to Japanese soldiers’ cruelty.

-

Do countries have the obligation to compensate each other for the injustices done in time of war?

Countries are obligated to pay for the injustices in the time of war. If there are no responsibility for a nation to recompense for the injustices practiced during wartime, nations' destruction may go off the limit to a total devastation of a place. Wartime injustices should be abolished and large amount of financial reparation for the injustices done in wartime is a way to prevent further devastations possibly resulting in a region.

-

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?

The incident that happened in Nogunri during the Korean War was covered until the late 20th century. Unknown number of civilians were killed and the reasons behind the massacre is unsure. After AP announced the incident, both the United States and Korean governments began their investigation on the situation and in 2001, Pentagon finally revealed their review on the matter. President Clinton also made a formal apology for the tragic event that occurred and announced that in remembrance and honor of the victims, scholarships would be awarded and a memorial built at the site. However, survivors of their families were not appeased by the show of cooperation and agreement between the two nations, nor by the type of compensation offered up. While I pertain to my idea about material compensation being necessary for the wartime injustices, in this case, the United States government did not proffer enough monetary recompense for the victims. Offering scholarships and a memorial for the hundreds of innocent civilians who met death by the inconsiderate and inhumane American soldiers is not enough. While the formal acceptance and apology for the incident is respectable, the compensation should amount to larger financial reparation. However, this situation is different from Korea-Japan controversy because Korea-Japan controversy involves a deeper hereditary enmity. Koreans’ hatred toward Japan is more of a national identity matter. Japan is used as a historic enemy of the nation to stress the code of Koreans. While the Nogunri case includes a monetary matter, Japan-Korea is of deeper ethnical, political situation.

- NOVEMBER 13-14 write a two paragraph reflection: Should Korea and China have a say in what Japan puts into its textbooks?

Korea and China do not have a say in what Japan puts into its textbooks. Japan's textbooks are made for the Japanese so Korea and China do not have the right to argue what to put in Japanese textbooks. While Koreans and Chinese may feel offended by the information put in Japanese textbooks that beautify the "wartime crimes" by the Japanese, the textbooks belong to the Japanese so the two Asian countries cannot interfere with the domestic affairs of Japan. Besides, every country's textbook is biased to its own. For instance, Korean textbooks stress the cruelty and evilness of the Japanese during the Japanese domination of Korea, rather than the incapability of Korean government to protect its own land. Also, the massive financial support of Japan to Korea during the 1960's and 70's is not informed in Korean history textbooks. While Korea and China refuse to delete their own prejudices against the Japanese in their own textbooks, urging Japan to change its textbooks is a ludicrous demand. While textbooks should remain as poised and objective as they can be, if they add information and ideas that Korea and China wish to put in, the information will be emphasizing the guilt of Japanese government and show how the two nations were innocent and only victims of Japan's cruelty. However, this will arouse another twist in the history book and false ideas. Therefore, the nations should accept the imperfectness in textbooks and the property right of Japan in printing textbooks.