Hanna

Koreans as well as Chinese for years have demanded Japan for the correction of its history textbook details stating that it distorts the truth. Many have concerns over this, because they feel Korea and China is interfering in Japan’s internal affairs. However, in my opinion, Korea and China has a full right to have a say in what Japan puts into its textbooks for several reasons. The most fundamental reason that justifies Korea and China’s interference is the fact that these wrong written history facts’ victims are Koreans and Chinese themselves. As being the victims, Koreans and Chinese are fully aware of the events and can surely determine if the textbook is distorting the truth or not. Another reason for their interference is what textbooks symbolize in the context of history. Textbook is the source in which the students learn history; it further impacts their perception of history into adulthood. Ignoring certain details of history events that might appear to be a disadvantage to them symbolizes that the nation will like to ignore their misdeeds during the past and brainwash their citizens to feel that their nation is the best; in simple terms, this is the one of the most unethical acts a nation can do to the victims. In conclusion, Korea and China, for years, have fought to preserve some sort of dignity for the victims of Japanese misdeeds, thus should be fully justified for their interference.
 * Should Korea and China have a say in what Japan puts into its textbooks?**


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

Yes, I feel that countries definitely have the obligation to compensate each other for their misdeeds done on war. Compensation doesn’t necessarily mean to pay back by materialistic ways. Compensation might simply mean expressing their apologies for their misdeeds as the Germans did for their enterprise in the Jewish Holocaust. This is because compensation means something more then paying back, it shows their willingness to admit their acts and pay remorse for the victims. Without the compensation, the two countries will never come to a resolution and the resentment will continue to increase as the Japanese and Koreans have.

Even now, Japanese are always perceived to be overly polite, generous and morally obligated. But how come these “polite” Japanese were able to commit these cruel acts in the Rape of Nanking that is beyond human imagination? Many scholars and journalists have found this question impossible to be completely explored. Thus, they have instead provided people with several theoretical answers.
 * Why do you think the Japanese were so cruel? How can ordinary Japanese soldiers commit such atrocities(cruel acts)?**

One possible answer that was proposed was that the Japanese atrocities of wartime were embedded in the culture itself. The moral obligations is more locally implemented, thus the Japanese could easily break it in foreign soil. More over, the prominent Japanese religion Shintoism proclaims that only the emperor and his descendants were created in God’s image compared to Christianity in which all humans are brothers, making an assumption that foreigners weren’t equal to the Japanese. However, there are flaws in this reasoning because it makes assumptions that Japanese are naturally less humane than the West due to their religion and that Christian cultures are less capable of committing atrocities in which we know to be false since devout Christians like Nazis committed crimes against humanity.

So, what the answer comes down to is two things: Japanese’s value and the way soldiers were trained. From young age, it is recorded that Japanese were educated in such way to think Chinese were less than humans, equal as animals. Brought up in such educational environments, when children grew to be a soldier, killing the Chinese would have been easier since Chinese were dehumanized in Japanese society. Not only were their environment suitable for them to cruelly kill innocent Chinese, Japanese value such as loyalty over death and that individual lives are valueless contributed to the ability of ordinary soldiers to kill Chinese without hesitation. Unless, their own life was valueless, they were no reason not to assume that Chinese lives were valueless as well. Also, as we see later in the book, as Chinese surrendered to the Japanese without attempting to fight, soldiers who highly value loyalty over death such as Azuma were outraged and felt the Chinese lives were worthless and was provoked to kill more.


 * Chapter 1 Reflection**

Chapter 1 of The Rape of Nanking succeeds in answering one of the many questions about the motivation behind Japan's cruel actions against Chinese. According to the text, there are several reasons that fueled this cruel inhumane event of history. But in my opinion, the reasons can mainly be divided into two categories: national and foreign influence. In a national sense, Japanese brainwashed its citizens to the full potential to go against all of their enemies including China. It adopted the samurai code of bushido which emphasized "the view of death over surrender." This application of strong opposition against its enemies spread into even boundaries of education. For example, in page 30 of the book, it states that the "teachers also instilled boys hatred and contempt for the Chinese people." Since from young age, Japanese were grown under the environment in which Chinese were viewed as evil beings, no doubt it was easier for them to slaughter millions and thousands of Chinese. But the initial reason for the Rape of Nanking can not be purely blamed at the Japanese for the foreigners are also responsible as well. In page 23 of the book, the author establishes an ironical parallelism between the time when Perry had forced into Japan and the time Japan had forced into Korea. It states who two were "hauntingly reminiscent." Based on this, one can clearly see that the aggressive methods the west used served as a model to the violent actions of the Japanese. And since the westerners were too high of a enemy for Japan, the application of these violent measures instead turned to target Koreans and Chinese. Overall, in chapter 1 of the book, the author provided a good sense of reasons behind this inhumane stain of history, I look forward now to actually examine how big a stain this event of Nanking is.


 * Rape of Nanking Introduction Reflection**


 * //“One historian had estimated that if the dead from Nanking were linked to hands, they would stretch from Nanking to city of city of Hangchow, spanning a distance of some tow hundred miles. Their blood would weigh twelve hundred tons...”//**

The descriptions provided in the introduction of Rape of Nanking are truly horrifying. Just to imagine mass numbers of innocent civilians being slaughtered without clear reason makes me furious even though I may have no afflictions with them. More over, these descriptions confuse my mind with so many questions. One question that I came to encounter reading the “chronicle of humankind’s cruelty to fellow humans” was rather humans are truly humane. Humane is defined as “showing compassion” in the dictionary, its word root is similar to the word “human,” which usually brings out the notion of being civilized and benevolent then animals. However, events such as the Rape of Nanking question the nature of humans. Are they truly any better than animals? Is killing another civilization based on notions of ethnic superiority, nationalism, and desire for wealth and land justifiable? The introduction does not answer this directly, but instead explains that the book’s aim “is not to establish a quantitative record to qualify the event as one of great evil deeds of history, but to understand the event so that lessons can be learned and warning sounded.” Reading this quote really brought up my resentment toward to the present word. Even though humans are aware the events such as Rape of Nanking are cruel beyond imagination, even now they continue to initiate wars, fights, massacres. This is also the reason I look forward to reading rest of this book. I will like to know how this book can bring my awareness to human cruelty and how as a global citizen, I can let this deathly cycle stop.


 * 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.”**

Compared to the two countries, especially Japan, Korea showed strong opposition in their initial contact with westerners. Koreans wanted to continue their exclusionism and keep their definition of what a Korean was. However, in this present world, Korea is considered to be one of the most modernized nations. And as we come to deserve this title, many wonder if we would’ve been better off if we had opened up to the west earlier. In my opinion, the earlier open of Korea wouldn’t have made Korea better than what it is right now. Opening up to the west partly means making sacrifices. To get access to technology, modernization methods, it’s natural for a nation to give up a national identity in some part since the western ideas will be ruling over the traditional belief. Considering that national unity and national identity has helped Korea through many crises such as IMF, if westernization had happened earlier, it’s a logical to assume that the nationalistic feelings of Korea hasn’t been strong as it is now. However, one thing for sure is if we would have opened up earlier to western modernization, Korea would have been avoided being colonized by nations such as Japan. But again, I feel without these events of colonization, Korean identity wouldn’t have been the same as it is now. In conclusion, considering the core driving force of Korea, national unity, opening up o the west earlier necessarily wouldn’t have led Korea to be “better off”

Scholars of the world try to define nature in specific terms that are many times hard to understand for most people. By using these unnecessary challenging worlds, the scholars try to put themselves over others. When the quote says “my words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice,” it’s referring to how Taoism is not consistent of extravagant words and provides equal exposure to everyone regardless of gender, age, status. To move on, when it says “straightforward words seem paradoxical,” it shows how trying to define things limit the meaning of Tao and nature. In the end, these quotes show the fundamental principle of how Tao cannot be defined and how Taoism is open to everyone.
 * 1

Pooh reflects how exactly Taoist view typical scholars. To Taoist, scholars try too hard and do their best to boast of their knowledge. Whether than trying to experience nature, they try to limit nature within definitions. They blame the idea of ignorance in many circumstances. Even though they have a lot of information, they’re missing the inner nature which is much more important. Taoist just like pooh believes that knowledge cannot be studied for the sake of studying and obtaining knowledge. More over, scholars focus too much in the past and present, whether than focusing on the present. In conclusion, Taoist believes that Confucian scholars are desiccated and many times impratical.
 * 2