Soobin

=Reflection on Western Incursion=

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 have been better off if it had “opened up to the west.”

Due to the competition among western nations, the west was able to develop in several aspects, including military and industry, to become stronger and more powerful than other countries. As industrialization took place, the west was able to advance their technology and invent new efficient devices, which helped their economy. China and Japan were among the various targets for imperialism from the west. Although China and Japan were reluctant to apply western ideas, they had eventually accepted westerners in order to become developed and stable nations. However, Korea was more willing to preserve their traditional ideas, rather than develop, therefore did not embrace westernization as easily as the Chinese or Japanese, who believed that westernization was the key to become successful and a way to defeat Europe or the United States. By westernizing, China and Japan were able to open new trading ports, where they were able to export and import goods, which led them to gain profit, improve their economy, and attain goods that are not in their own country. Korea would have been better off if they “opened up to the west” earlier. Westernizing offered opportunities to advance in military and economy, which were the two main factors that determined a nation’s authority and power. With this in mind, if Korea had been more open to the west, they would not have been colonized by the Japanese as easily, since they would have had advanced weapons, such as guns, from the west. In addition, westernizing would not have completely eradicated Korean traditions and culture since culture is something that is embedded and can never be destroyed within a country, therefore there was no need to be concerned about preserving traditions. It would have been more logical to accept western ideas freely and advance in military and economy to present themselves as a powerful nation, which could potentially have prevented or decreased the number of invasions on Korea.

=**Response to //Rape of Nanking// Introduction**=

Greatly impacted by the event of brutal Japanese assault on China in Nanking, Iris Chang, the author, suggests that the Rape of Nanking is a rather serious historical event that is not recognized by most countries. In the introduction, Chang mentions the severity of the attack on Nanking by providing the number of Chinese deaths and comparing it to the number of deaths in other significant massacres and genocides, such as the Holocaust. By reading the introduction, it is noticeable that Chang has a strong opinion against the Japanese for their indifference towards the horrible event. She explains how every nation who had committed such slaughter had at least expressed apology and regret towards their victims. “And it is not just the fact that while Germans have made repeated apologies to their Holocaust victims, the Japanese have enshrined their war criminals in Tokyo…” (Chang 12). Although the introduction provides examples and proof of the brutality of the Japanese during the Rape of Nanking, Chang displays rather opinionated ideas, due to her connection with China. It appears that Chang wrote this book in order to raise awareness of the Rape of Nanking. In her perspective, Chang believes that the Rape of Nanking is not mentioned enough in textbooks or discussed enough among people, therefore published this book to “educate” readers more about this event. She also believes that by publishing the Rape of Nanking, people around the world, including Japanese, will acknowledge the massacre as a significant historical event that should be taught around the world more in depth.

=Chapter 1 Response: //Rape of Nanking//=

Although the Japanese intended to adapt to and apply western ideas in order to compete against the westerners, they went further by expanding their empire. At first, the Japanese westernized purely for the sake of proving to the west how powerful Japan can become, but feared the idea that they may lose their moral and cultural values. Chapter 1 supports the idea that Japan had started off as a rather conservative and weak country that had not experienced industrialization. However, after they were raged by western aggression, they began to apply western ideas in order to beat the westerners. Unfortunately, Japan was influenced by the idea of colonizing, and “forgot” about their moral values, blinded by the desire to gain power and dominance. Although imperialism was beneficial in terms of attaining resources, it had caused large number of deaths due to the act of enslavement and slaughter. At the Rape of Nanking, Japanese soldiers had annihilated China’s capital as they bombed and exterminated innocent civilians without reason. This idea led me to feel frustrated and puzzled. The fact that Japan had been concerned about maintaining moral values and criticizing the west for not doing so baffles me. After all, Japan had not displayed morality or virtue whatsoever during their attack on Nanking.

=Reflection pg 54 - pg 59=


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

Curious about the motives of the Japanese soldiers, pg54 to pg59 of the Rape of Nanking gave me an idea on how the influence of merciless commanders had impacted the way novice Japanese soldiers think. It is interesting how the Japanese are known to be very polite and calm, but brutal and cruel in wars. Although it there are many possible reasons to why the Japanese committed such atrocities, the book suggests many purposes that may have contributed in the way Japanese think in terms of killing and massacre. According to Samurai traditions, they had killed and beheaded those who did not answer an addressed question in a polite or respectful manner. This tradition may have caused the Japanese soldiers to expect respect from the civilians of Nanking. However, Japan’s sudden attack on China stupefied the civilians and neglected the Japanese, reluctant to follow their rules. Another reason suggested by the book was the difference in religion. Japan had been devout Shintoists, and was not as keen of Christianity. Christianity valued the idea of “kinship” and considered everyone as “brothers” and “sisters,” while Shintoism focused more on the divinity of the emperor. “Others blame the non-Christian nature of Japanese religion, claiming that while Christianity puts forth the idea that all humans are brothers – indeed, that all things were created in God’s image – Shintoism in Japan purports that only the emperor and his descendants were created in God’s image” (Chang 54). Japanese soldiers also believed that it was acceptable to kill anyone as long as the emperor was satisfied and unharmed, sacrificing their own life was also considered reasonable, rather than surrendering. “Some Japanese soldiers admitted it was easy for them to kill because they had been taught that next to the emperor, all individual life – even their own – was valueless” (Chang 58). There are various reasons to why the Japanese were so cruel and how they were able to commit such atrocities without hesitation. However, religion, Samurai traditions, as well as influence from fellow soldiers or commanders appear to be the major reasons. Despite the fact that Japan is considered a polite nation, they remain as ruthless in history due to the incident at Nanking.

=**The Rape of Nanking: Massacre, Genocide, Holocaust**=


 * 1) What is a massacre, holocaust, and genocide?**

Massacre: killing of a mass number of people without reason, randomly Holocaust: slaughter people in large numbers Genocide: killing of a great number of people based on race or ethnicity


 * 2) Was "The Rape of Nanking" a genocide and/or holocaust?**

The Rape of Nanking can is often referred to as a massacre, where the Japanese soldiers had slaughtered Chinese regardless of age. Whether if the Rape of Nanking was genocide or holocaust varies in answer. However, in my perspective, it appears that the Rape of Nanking was rather more of a holocaust. Although the Japanese mainly slaughtered Chinese people, it has been said that some westerners were also at risk in Nanking. If the event were a genocide, the Japanese would have only focused on killing Chinese people, however, they threatened to kill westerners who attempted to expose Japanese atrocities.


 * 3) Why do you think some refer to it as a massacre?**

Some may refer the Rape of Nanking as a massacre, since it was a brutal slaughter of people regardless of race or age. Japanese soldiers had raped women over the age of 80 and even little girls under the age of ten. The Japanese had no limit in killing the Chinese people, and were merciless and indiscriminate when slaughtering.


 * 4) Does the term we ascribe (assign to) really matter?**

The term we ascribe matters because it is important to refer to the event with the correct word to describe it. For example, if the Rape of Nanking was ascribed as a genocide, many will misunderstand it as a slaughter of only Chinese people. Since many people do not know about the Rape of Nanking, it definitely matters whether if the Rape of Nanking is referred to as a massacre, holocaust, or genocide.


 * 5) Why do we study such horrific events?**

We study such horrific events in order to “learn from our mistakes.” Some countries are regretful and remorseful for what they did in the past. Therefore, to prevent these terrible events from occurring again, we study them in the modern day world, and spread awareness of the immorality of such actions.

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

Countries are often responsible for the damages they had made in other nations after a war. The Treaty of Versailles, made after the Great War, had punished the Germans for causing such inconveniences for other nations. It is reasonable for a country to compensate another country, for the atrocities they had committed. Due to the large numbers of casualties and deaths in the country that was attacked, the nation that had invaded must be responsible enough to solve the problems.

=Massacre at Nogun-ri: Reflection=

Both the Japanese occupation and the Nogun-ri massacre had risked the lives of many civilians in Korea. However, the Nogun-ri massacre appears to be a less severe event, as the United States had compensated greatly in order to express remorse for what they had done. The Japanese were in denial when they were first accused of committing terrible atrocities in Korea, when Korea was under Japanese colonization. Denial of something they had done expresses the insincerity and selfishness of the nation. Therefore, due to Japanese indifference towards the Koreans, the Korea-Japanese controversy appears to be more extreme than the Nogun-ri massacre. In my opinion, it would have been more reasonable for Japan to admit what they had done to Korean civilians, rather than remain reluctant to accept their past. The United States were more professional in the way they tried to resolve problems, as well as express apology for what they had committed in Nogun-ri. Instead of denying the fact that they slaughtered Koreans in Nogun-ri, the Unites States chose to admit what they had done, and destroy the barrier between Korea and them by providing aid and compensating. “President Clinton offered an unprecedented apology for the deaths and announced that, in remembrance and honor of the victims, scholarships would be awarded and a memorial built at the site” (AskAsia.com). By at least attempting to compensate and give aid to the country they had damaged, they would be recognized as a responsible nation. Korea received numerous compensations from the United States, therefore allowed the United States to maintain a more “positive” reputation in Korea, than the Japanese. It takes more than an apology to win back the trust of a country, after attacking them. Although it may not be “complete” trust, it is a country’s responsibility to compensate economically and satisfy the nation they had damaged. A country cannot expect to be free from "punishments" after significantly damaging another country. Lost lives are a more severe consequence than economic downfall, since those who were killed cannot be brought back alive. Therefore, it requires more than an apology for a country to compensate the damages they had made and deaths they had caused.

=Should Korea and China have a say in what Japan puts into its textbooks?=

Although Japan has the right to decide what they write in their textbooks, they must be considerate and unbiased when presenting the information. In most cases students misunderstand about a historical event because textbooks teach them incorrectly. Therefore, in order to prevent misunderstanding and bias, Korea and China definitely have a say in what Japan puts in their textbooks. If textbooks are written in a “lopsided” fashion, meaning prejudiced, controversies among countries may continue. In order to avoid these conflicts, countries must agree upon what a country writes in their textbook. Students often find themselves feeling hatred towards a certain country because they are not told the entire truth. For example, Japanese textbooks mention the glory of their military in the past, but hardly mention the atrocities they had committed. “… the textbooks compiled by right-wing groups obscure Japan’s militarism, justify and glorify Japan’s militarist past and beautify its invasions” (Gang). Rather than being wrongly accused or ignored, Korea and China have the right to notify and suggest Japan to include facts that all countries agree to be true. The countries must negotiate on what should be included in the textbook to avoid controversies.