Yang,+ClaireBDSEM22011

__**Sino-Japanese War**__ 1. How are the Chinese soldiers portrayed in these prints? The Japanese soldiers? The Chinese soldiers are depicted as fearful soldiers who are helplessly being defeated by the stout, brave-looking Japanese soldiers. Dead Chinese soldiers are strewn across the ground and are stepped on by the Japanese soldiers. While the Chinese soldiers are portrayed as being timid, the Japanese soldiers are portrayed as fierce men.

2. Look at the weapons used by each side, are they different? How? Does this tell us anything about Japanese technological advancement? While the Chinese soldiers use “primitive” weapons like long spears, tridents, Japanese soldiers use swords (not samurai swords), and bayonets. Chinese soldiers are holding bayonet, but from what the prints suggest, they must be an older model. Japan’s military was armed with modern weapons which gave them advantage over the Chinese military.

3. Why do sports often become symbolic battlegrounds between nations? Sports, objectively speaking are just games, but they have become something that arouse nationalism in people. Sports become symbolic battlegrounds between nations because people believe that victory over the other team proves the nation’s superiority over the other (for example, Korea and Japan, when Kim Yu-na placed second, people were not just disappointed because she didn’t place first, but more because she ranked lower than the Japanese figure skater). //Why does this matter to a people? What do they find so gratifying in the experience of witnessing their team beat another in the arena of sport?//

4. Is imperialism/colonialism simply about militarily and politically controlling another nation, or is it also about proving one’s self-perceived cultural superiority over another? To say that imperialism/colonialism is about militarily and politically controlling another nation would be an oversimplification. Imperialism and colonialism is also about proving one’s cultural superiority over another. When we see accounts written by imperialists about the imperialized nation, they depict them as being barbaric and uneducated. Somehow power becomes almost “black and white”: you either conquer or be conquered. Imperialism has become a means to prove that a country is a superior, strong nation that is not to be “messed with”

__**Russo-Japanese War**__ 1. Do artistic renditions or photographs depict the heroics of war better? Artistic renditions depict the heroics of the war better: while photographs reveal stark realities of the war, artistic renditions allow the individual to “manipulate” the realities of war (take on a different perspective) and glorify the events. Artistic renditions are therefore effective media for stirring up nationalistic feelings from the mass.

2. Do artistic renditions or photographs depict the horrors of war better? (Consider all photographs of war that you have seen, both historical and contemporary) Photographs, unlike artistic renditions that are very much based on the artists’ “imagination” display the realities of war - grim soldiers, hanged soldiers, piles of corpses. It is difficult to manipulate photographs in such a way that war is simply depicted as a glorious event. However, it is true that photographs and moving films caught the mass’ interest, and became effective means of strengthening Japanese nationalism. For instance, films reenacting the scenes of Russo-Japanese War were quite popular, and scenes displaying Japanese weakness in the war were heavily criticized by the masses.

3. How does the medium affect the message? Can we say that, "[T]he medium is the message"? Depending on the medium that is used, a particular event or message can be conveyed in a different perspective. Take for instance, the wood-block prints and photographs. Essentially, they both depict the scenes of Russo-Japanese War, but the wood-block prints suggest to the viewers that there was little damage inflicted on Japan’s side. Although medium plays a decisive role in affecting the viewer’s perception of the event, to say that medium overshadows the importance of the content itself may be an overstatement. However, it cannot be denied that the mere presence of a medium itself may imply significant things about our society (the author uses the light bulb as an example). Widespread use of various media has overwhelmed our society with news of countless tragedies that we find ourselves at times indifferent to them. Different media elicit different responses.

4. Why is 1905 such a turning point in Japanese and World history? How might history have been different had Japan lost the Russo-Japanese War? Western nations have been actively imperializing many Asian countries like the Philippines and China (economically). What Japanese victory in Russo-Japanese War did was it put a stopper to Western imperialism in East Asia. For the first time Japan’s victory proved the ability of an East Asian country to confront against a western power. This allowed Japan to consolidate its national sovereignty and for other western powers to “take them seriously”. It also enabled Japan to establish and expand upon its empire. Had Japan lost the Russo-Japanese War, western powers would have kept “pushing” into East Asia and expanding its empire.

__**Charter of Oath & Gabo Reform Edicts**__ 1. How are these documents alike? Be specific in showing exactly how they are similar. Both documents address the issue of establishing equality by abolishing the class system. The Charter Oath tries to achieve this by granting everyone (members of both high and low classes) the opportunity to pursue his/her own calling. Similarly, the Gabo Reform Edicts sought to achieve this by abolishing the hierarchy system and granting opportunity for intellectuals (not only scholars, but also skilled men/women) to be supported. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Charter Oath it is evident that both countries strive to strengthen its military. In the Gabo Reform Edicts, it orders for the establishment of a conscripted army.

2. How are these documents different? Be specific in showing how exactly they are different. While the Gabo Reforms promotes establishment of Korea as a sovereign nation with national identity unique from that of China (e.g. education reform that would implant a sense of Korean national identity and use of hangeul) the Charter Oath encouraged adoption from other nations to strengthen its power (it even referred some of its traditional customs as “evil”). Also it is evident that the Charter Oath pushes for a populist government and the Gabo Reform Edicts for centralization with more power centered around the king himself.

3. What, ultimately, is their purpose? The ultimate purpose of these two documents is to set the stage for modernization and recover their countries from the exploitation of foreign power. However, the difference between their purposes in drafting these documents would be that while Japan hoped to establish itself as an imperialist country with its own sphere of influence, Korea was simply interested in strengthening its country so as to prevent foreign nations from over-running their economy (colonization).

4. These were very lofty goals for both people to try to achieve. To what degree do you feel the Koreans and the Japanese were able to achieve their objectives? Koreans were not able to achieve great part of what they initially set out to do, and that was largely because of the people’s confucian ideals and conservatism. Animosity towards the Japanese and King Kojong’s dependence on Russian protection and act of allowing Russian control further distanced Korea from achieving these goals. Japanese were more successful in achieving these goals than Koreans. Although they failed to establish a populist government, and instead leaned toward more of a militarist rule Japan was able to dismantle the feudal system by confiscating samurais’ privileges. Japan succeeded in becoming a major Asian imperialist country by advancing its technology, and claiming victory against China and Russia (their victory allowed them to expand their sphere of influence).

__**Notes on Queen Min & Isabella Bird**__ May 12, 2011 - Isabella Bird was a writer and a traveler (despite the poor transportation system). Visited during the rule of Queen Min - Impression of Queen Min: she had courage and novelty, was very regal. Considered her to be a charismatic leader. - Leadership of woman in a male-dominant society - Beauty can be a tool for international diplomacy

- Queen Min was born in 1851, and married King Kojong - Taewongun didn't want a queen with a powerful background (was a threat), but still later gained quite - Queen Min wanted to make Korea independent so she carried out reforms to westernize Korea - Some people would call her "Lady Macbeth" => Kapsin Coup - Queen Min was an nationalistic icon - Make the imperialists play against each other. Queen Min wanted to use this strategy (buy time for Korea to modernize). Russia removed from the equation => Japanese annexation.

__**Korean History Timeline**__ http://www.dipity.com/claire0526/Timeline-of-Korean-History-The-Last-One-Hundred-Years-of-the-Chosun-Dynasty/
 * MLA citations can be found in the timeline