Crossing Borders Test 3
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Imperialism
- Imperialism is the ideas of economic, social, political, and cultural domination of a territory outside one's own borders. Takes place in the metropole
- Colonialism
- The implementation of the ideas of imperialism that takes place in colonies.
- Cutlure
- Using Morris-Suski's definition of culutre, I define culture as a socially constructed conglomeration of contrasting and often conflicting terms of identifying people.
- Lee Kwan Yew
- Former president of Singapore who still plays a very active role in singapore's politics. Used the notion of an "East Asian" (China, Japan, Vietnam, and Korea) culture to prove that East Asia is incompativle with democracty because it clashes culturally with Asia's value system and cultural practices (gives examples). Wants to use this notion of an East Asian culture to suit HIS system of government
- Kim Dae Jung
- Former president of South Korea, politcal activist, advocate of democracy. Also uses notion of "East Asian culture" to prove that democracy is compatible with the region's culture. Again appealing of this idea of culture to justify his ideas.
- Eight Categories of Japanese-ness
-
Pure Japanese (c,l,n)
1st generation migrants (c,l)
Japanese raised abroad (l,n)
naturalized Japanese (n,c)
3rd generation migrants/war orphans (l)
Zainichi Koreans w/ Japanese upbringing (c)
ainu (n)
non-Japanese () - On what does Fukukoa based his categories of "Japanese-ness"
- linage, culture, and nationality
- Do you agree with the basis for Fukukoa's definition of "Japanese-ness"
- No, he himself admits that it is an oversimplification. Some people have mixed lineage. Some people change their nationality or obtain dual citizenship. Some people adopt different cultures or identify with different parts of a culture. Furthermore, I believe that the notion of culture is constructed, with people being coneted to different cutlures that often have differnet/conflicting practices
- Abacus
- represents industrialism (economic strength, etc.)
- Sword
- military strength i.e. colonialsm
- Duus's argument?
- That industrialism empowered Japan to participate in the "colonial adventure." He explains that although industrialism motivated and allowed Japan to particpate in colonialism, industrialism could have occured WITHOUT colonialism. However, colonialism could NOT have occured without industrialism.
- What is the periodization of your project? Justify the beginning and the end dates/
- late 1890s to 2006 I choose 1890s because the first wave of Korean economic refugees came to Japan after the unequal Kanghwa treaty was signed. I choose 2006 because people who experienced this population transfer are still living today and the countries involved are still struglgling with ways to accurately represent this history.
- What state was or what states were involved in the case? What is your definition of a state?
- Using Weber's definition of a state as, a body that controls the legitimate use of physical force in a given region, I would say that Japan (before 1945), the US, and the Soviet Union were the states involved.
- What nation was or what nations were involved in the case? What is your definition of a nation?
- Using the definition of a nation as a group of people sharing a common culture, a common project for the future, a past, attached to a clearly demarcated territory and claiming the right to rule themselves, I would lable the Japanese, the native Chinese in Manchuria, and the Koreans the nations involved in this case.
- Were there any transnational organizations or entites involved, and if so, which ones? What role did they play?
- The transnational organization involved in this case was the allied powers. After WWI, the Japanese empire was broken up into four zones of occupation: the Soviet, American, British, and National Chinese zones. The United States came to dominate the control of mainland Japan and took control over most of the population transfers.
- Did imperialism, colonialism, and decolonization play a role in this case?
- Yes, the ideals of imperialism propelled Japan to pratice colonialism in Japan and Korea. The colonization of China's three northeast provinces was what brought the Japanese to that region. Similarly, the economic drain caused by Japan's unequal treaties/annexation of Korea brought Koreans to Japan. Following WWII, Japan's empire was dismantaled, or decolonized, and the Allied Powers felt that as a part of decolonization different groups of people should be returned to their appropriate national territory.
- Who are the people who no longer "fit," in the colonies and in Japan?
- The people who no longer fit were the Japanes in the colonies and the Koreans in Japan.
- About how many were there? In the colonies and in Japan?
- There were about 7 million Japanese in China's 3 northeast provinces and about 2 million Koreans in JHapan.
- HOw are the groups of people involved (the people being moved and the people who want to expel them) defined? In terms of langauge, religion, race, ethinicty?
- In this case, I would argue that the people were defined by their lineage. Those in Manchuria whose recent ancestors/they themselevs had moved from Japan to Manchuria as a part of colonialism were those that did not "fit" in Japan. Likewise, those that did not "fit" in Japan were the Koreans who had moved themslves or were the recent decendants of Korean economic refugees.
- WHo decided that they need to be moved or eliminated? What raionale was used?
- The Big 3, the US, USSR, and GB, decided that these populations needed to be transfered. At Potsdam, they declared that the lands that Japan had colonized would be returned (i.e. Manchuria was returned to the Chinese) and that the military personell in those regions would be returned home. The rational for this population transfer was not really discussed, it was just assumed that within the prevailing understaind of nations and states at the time that a group of people belong within their appropriate national boundaries.
- Was there a gender component involved, and if so, how are people using gender, and how are you, the analyst, using it?
- In this population transfer, gender did not play a direct role. Both men and women were transfered, regardless of their gender.
- How did the actors involved in teh case invoke history to make a case for expulsion one way or the other? Is there evidence available to support or refute their telling?
- Although the raionale for this population transfer was not really explored, it was based on several flawed understandings of history. First was the belief that diferent "nations" could not exist in one territory. Before colonization and the creation state many nations coexisted in large Empires such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire without huge problems and this fact proves that nations CAN peacefully coexist. Second was the belief that the "Japanese" and the "Koreans" were clearly defined, homogenous nations. This is not true because both had conflicting notions of defining themselves, because there are people of mixed lineage, because they only contain one small component of "Japanese-ness." This understanding of history and of people was thus flawed.
- How would you characterize this case? Genocide? Population Transfer?
- Using Simpson and Yinger's definition of population transfer from Fukukoa's article as "a policy that attempts to remove friction between a minority and a majority by removing the latter from the former - specifically by sending the minority to its homeland. Although sometimes well intentioned, this frequently has sinister results and can be termed "the removal of an irritation," I would define this as a population transfer.