jessica+choi

1) What is a massacre, holocaust, and genocide?** The dictionary definition of a massacre is "the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder." The definition of a holocaust is "a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire." A genocide is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." In my opinion, the Rape of Nanking suits both definitions of a genocide and a holocaust. Indeed, it was a complete destruction of an entire city, led by the Japanese army. However, it defines genocide in the sense that the Japanese army was attempting to exterminate the Chinese race. I thing some people refer to it as a massacre because there was no real justification behind the Rape of Nanking. The Japanese government denied to the actual event, and the killing itself was unnecessary. In my opinion, it doesn't matter which term the Rape of Nanking is officially classified as. The same number of people were killed and injured, whether it is called a massacre, holocaust, or genocide. The people killed in the Rape of Nanking were the innocent lives of civilians, and they cannot be brought back. However, some people may think that the official name is very important. The brutality of this event can be inferred by the name, from harsh words like "holocaust" and "genocide", to something less harsh, like "massacre". For people who don't know much about the event, they would be horrified if it were named a "genocide", than if it was named a "massacre." These events are studied to prevent history from repeating itself. Without acknowledging the consequences and uselessness of this event, this same event could occur in the future. Also, considering the lives lost from these events, I think it's important to study them. Otherwise, their killing is more or less meaningless. In my opinion, the Rape of Nanking is defined by all three words: massacre, holocaust, and genocide. First, it was an "unnecessary killing of a large number of human beings", but that isn't enough to fully describe the event. A holocaust defines it as "a complete devastation or destruction", which is true, because the city of Nanking was basically exterminated. A genocide describes it as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group," which is also true because the Japanese government was involved. The Japanese government was not only aware, but was behind all of the acts of cruelty in Nanking. In a way they were trying to exterminate the Chinese race.
 * RON Guiding Questions:
 * 2) Was "The Rape of Nanking" a genocide and/or holocaust?**
 * 3) Why do you think some refer to it as a massacre?**
 * 4) Does the term we ascribe (assign to) really matter?**
 * 5) Why do we study such horrific events?**
 * Is Rape of Nanking a massacre, holocaust, or a genocide?**

(definitions taken from dictionary.com)


 * Reflection: Intro of** //**The Rape of Nanking**//

As I was reading the introduction, I was shocked at how big this event was. The coverage of this event in American textbooks is literally about a paragraph and I didn't know how serious the event was. The vivid descriptions of the barbaric slaughters of people make it seem like it would be impossible to ignore such a tragedy - yet people have. As I was reading, I kept thinking of Nazi Germany. The Nanking Massacre included indescribable methods of torture, from the Japanese to the Chinese. It shocked me how covered up this event was, and how some Japanese still deny it happened. It is not covered in most history textbooks in America, depriving rights of the victims of this incident.

Through the writing of the story, the author tells that he wishes to raise awareness and present the story to the world. It seems as though Chang wants Japan to finally acknowledge this massacre and learn from it. To me, what is more frustrating than the massacre itself, is the disregard of the Japanese. In the intro, Chang states that some officials still stayed in power even after the war, which was more surprising. Also, the lack of international response seems outrageous, because there was probably evidence from pictures that showed the international community what was happening in China.


 * 8) 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 the start, the Koreans and the Taewogun were trying to repel all foreign influence from spreading ideas into Korea. They feared for an invasion, and isolated themselves from the West to maintain their identity. In response to Catholicism, a new religion was created - the Tonghak religion. It was a blend of all existing Eastern religions at the time. It's main focus was social equality. Unlike Japan, Koreans refused to give in to the "ocean barbarians" and remained isolated - for the time being. At this time, Korea was not very developed and was a fairly weak country. Because of this, if they had "opened up to the West", it would be a complete domination over a country. Korea was still in the process of developing its culture, and if foreigners were to have had much contact, much of the culture as we know it would've been lost.