Sally

“My words are very easy to understand and very easy 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 regards to scholars? This quotation means that the work of philosophy is “easy to understand and very easy to put into practice,” because it can relate to each individual in a different way. However, the words of scholars that are supposedly “straightforward” are at times because they don’t know the meaning of what they are saying according to The Tao of Pooh. Through the book, it states that scholars don’t know what they are saying which is why they use such large words to hide the fact that they are unsure of the answer and also to seem as though they are more superior than the others. This is unlike the Tao which is open to everyone, not making anyone any more superior to each other.

Read the poem on page 30. What does Pooh seem to think about scholars? How does that relate to the Taoist view of knowledge? Pooh seems to think that scholars stress over unimportant matters. The poem shows the scholar’s logic of one thing being another and vice versa. However, this is only used to confuse people. There was also a short account from The Tao of Pooh saying that scholars only use the large words that they use to conceal the fact that they do not know. For instance, scientist or scholars always say “instinct” for certain behaviors, such as “why do birds fly?” This is “instinct” in simpler way of saying that they don’t know but want to be more superior. Rather than learning what is unnecessary, Taoist believed that it is more worthy and useful to simply follow the flow of everything rather than follow a certain pattern of knowledge. This can also be true because knowledge isn’t always correct, scholars are often wrong. For example, the scholar in The Tao of Pooh, Owl, has the scholarly logic of “Twosday” which is followed by “Thirdsday.” This is not true at all.

The Rape of Nanking Introduction Reflection
As I read the introduction of the book, I tended to make a connection with the Japanese and the Nazi Jews and Hitler. The Japanese were just as brutal as the Nazis treating the Jewish during the holocaust in Europe. Or, at least the Japanese were far more brutal than Nazi Germany. And it was even before the Nazis. Therefore I came to my own conclusion that the Nazis might have modeled their extermination camps and concentration camps. The further I read through the introduction, it reminded me of the Japanese occupation of Korea. Although in Korea, the Japanese did not necessarily massacred the civilians as they did in Nanking, they did kill all the people who were suspected to be traitors of the nation.

The Rape of Nanking Chapter 1 Reflection
Throughout the first chapter, it showed that Japan was now officially taken it into their power to make sure that the Japanese citizens are “brainwashed” so they follow the nation. The citizens are taught at school to be loyal to the nation. And also it is not necessary the individual that matters. Perhaps it is just my interpretation of the text, but I thought the text seems to show that the Japanese had a mind of unification, the idea of being one. Maybe the Hitler developed not only the idea of the torturing sessions, but also being superior over the Jews from the Japanese. The Japanese seem to have believed they are more superior, and therefore securing their power by educating the citizens since they are young that they are more superior.

Many probably still argue of the reasons the Japanese were so cruel. I think that the Japanese were cruel in order to show their superiority of their own culture over other cultures. By killing in such a inhuman manner, perhaps the Japanese thought that it would show the clear distinction of who is inferior and who is superior.
 * Why do you think the Japanese were so cruel? How can ordinary Japanese soldiers commit such atrocities(cruel acts)?**

Also, the Japanese did not value the life of an individual. The life of one individual was only for the benefit of the entire nation. Therefore perhaps the Japanese put this belief into action in Nanking, and started to murder the people for the “better” of the nation. It was another aspect of the Japanese people were taught since they were little to belittle other nations while making Japan look as a much more superior nation. Being taught and brainwashed to think so, the Japanese soldiers and generals automatically believed that the coward Chinese were nothing but a toy for the great Japanese people and military.

Another reason ordinary Japanese soldiers committed such cruel atrocities was because unlike the Chinese who had a strict belief of Confucianism that restricted such behavior. Perhaps if Nanking would have not fallen as easily as it did, the Japanese would be slightly more hesitant about the killing contests, raping, and bombings from the fear of their lives. It may simply be the fact that the Chinese decided to surrender so quickly which went against the Japanese belief of death is better than surrender.

RON in History
Guiding Questions: 1) What is a massacre, holocaust, and genocide? A Holocaust is any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life (dictionary.com). A synonym for holocaust is genocide. Genocide is a deliberate and systematic extermination of a racial, national, political, or cultural group (dictionary.com). Both holocausts and genocides are classified under massacre. Massacres are simply a general slaughter of people or animals.

2) Was "The Rape of Nanking" a genocide and/or holocaust? The Rape of Nanking was probably a genocide than a holocaust, because obviously reading through books and documents, there were westerners living within Nanking. However it was usually the Chinese who were killed and tortured. It was never the westerners who were the one being tortured and killed. According to the definition of a genocide from dictionary.com, it is a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national group.

3) Why do you think some refer to it as a massacre? The Rape of Nanking could also be considered as a massacre. A massacre is the broader category, which contains both holocaust and genocide within this category.

4) Does the term we ascribe (assign to) really matter? The terms that are ascribed do not matter. Massacre, holocaust, genocide, all three words means the same thing. It is not important to know what the terms mean, but the meaning of the event. By understanding the event, and realizing that it is immoral, it can be stopped from happening a second time. Or perhaps third time in this case, after the Holocaust of the Jews during World War II.

5) Why do we study such horrific events? The reason we study gruesome events throughout history, as well as other seemingly happy event, is the same. The positive aspects, we can follow in order to achieve a better society and relationship with every person. And the negative aspects, we can keep in mind in order to stop it from happening another time.

Waking Old Wounds
1) Read through the allegations (accusation). Choose three of the most compelling ones whether you agree or not. Two of the most compelling ones that I disagree with state that the Rape of Nanking is not necessarily as bad as the German Holocaust of the Jews. One states that 300,000 civilians were not killed. But because Nanking was still a war-zone, the soldiers were included into the statistics. Therefore it is not necessarily have a higher death toll rate than the German Holocaust.

2) Which rebuttal seems the least credible and why based on your knowledge of the Rape of Nanking? The least credible to me is the rebuttal to “The atrocities at Nanking amounted to nothing less than a Holocaust. Although it may be smaller by the numbers, it is not less than the Holocaust by much. With my knowledge of the Rape of Nanking, it was practically the same size as the Holocaust. It is repeated quite often throughout Coox’s rebuttals, but Coox’s repeats that the Rape of Nanking is far less than the Holocaust. For instance, he rebuts that it was not 300,000 innocent civilians that died, but also the soldiers within the battlegrounds of Nanking who were also killed and included into the statistics with the civilians.

3) What do you make of Coox’s argument that the RON was not a Holocaust? Does calling it as such really detract from the German holocaust, as Coox states? I believe that it is not what it is classified that is important. Coox disagrees that the Rape of Nanking is a holocaust. It does not matter whether it is a holocaust or not, but that everyone knows about the gruesomeness of the Rape of Nanking and no one repeats what happened in Nanking during that period. Therefore it would not be underestimating the German Holocaust by comparing it to the Rape of Nanking.

4) Coox attacks the notion that Nanking was perpetrated from the highest levels of the Japanese government down and that it was orchestrated to instill terror. Do you think his argument is credible? How much actual evidence is there in Chang’s book suggesting that high governmental officials knew and condoned the atrocity? (You should refer to chapter 8 to help you)

Do countries have an obligation to compensate each other for injustices done in time of war?
I believe countries must compensate each other for the injustices during the time of war to a certain extent. Both countries cannot compensate the scars given to the people, including the soldiers. Although the soldiers were put into place to fight, most were probably drafted and forced to go to battles against their will. However, the damage physically done to buildings and such property should be repaid to the extent that restores the lifestyle of the people.