In class on Wednesday (10/2) we discussed East Asia following the Second World War. This time period was heavily focused on rebuilding the area as they moved from Empires to Nations. Professor Bonk highlighted three sections: Reparation and Remaining, Redrawing Boundaries, and Rewriting History. The division of land was the main topic in class and in our reading by Alexia Dudden. Empires were focused on expansion and the centering of one major city, but with the transformation into nations we see a change to common identity as the most important aspect. This change was the reason land disputes were so apparent. In 1952 in the San Fransisco Treaty we see the disagreements and the loss of some territories on Japans end, this is just one example of the controversies between new nations on who gets what land.

What I found most interesting about this time period is the rewriting of history. Often these nations aim to erase their offenses and paint themselves as the victim. This can be seen with the Japanese peace parks that aim to show a sanitized version of the war, erasing their own faults from the narrative. I find it fascinating that through erasure and propaganda a nation and its government has the ability to rewrite history and often times get away with it.

A couple details from Wikipedia:

“Ue o Muite Arukō” was written by lyricist Rokusuke Ei and composer Hachidai Nakamura. The lyrics tell the story of a man who looks up and whistles while he is walking so that his tears will not fall, with the verses describing his memories and feelings. Ei wrote the lyrics while walking home from participating in the 1960 Anpo protests against the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, expressing his frustration and dejection at the failed efforts to stop the treaty. However, the lyrics were purposely generic so that they might refer to any lost love….

The song spent three weeks at the top of the American Billboard charts in June 1963. It has been described as a metaphor for the emerging post-World War II global expansion of Japan onto the world scene.

Today we discussed many aspects of Asian history, focusing on East Asia around 1800. Professor Bonk covered a number of powers, events, and relevant history contributing to the broader concepts of our course. In particular, one interesting focus was Beijing. A central player in this time period, the city was referred to as “the forbidden city.” This was related to the city’s careful approach to allowing people in and out. 

The average Chinese person was not allowed and citizens were forced to live south of the city. Even officials were to live elsewhere. This was a manifestation of Manchu power which was particularly relevant given the emergence of the Qing dynasty. The group used Beijing as a symbol of power and was seen as sacred. By controlling access to the city, they emphasized the importance of the ruling elite and reinforced their control. This maintained hierarchical structure was used to maintain their structure and control. 

This Monday we learned about East Asia in the time before and leading into the 20th century, covering the Qing and Choson dynasties as well as the Tokugawa era of Japan. This time period aimed to give insight into recent developments in East Asia, focusing on internal developments to counter the idea of development occurring because of increasing interactions with the West. One such development contributing to the growth of these empires is that of centering.

Centering refers to the pattern of great importance being placed on capital cities in these empires. In the Qing Empire, officials would make a trip to Beijing at least every three years to complete their examinations. In the Choson Empire, officials would travel to Seoul to participate in examinations similar to those of the Qing dynasty. Finally, in Tokugawa Japan, the daimyos, each ruling over their own domain, would have to travel to and live in Edo every other year. Due to this system, it was beneficial for a daimyo to rule a domain closer to Edo and thus the Shogun would place daimyos related by blood closest, and those who were enemies of the shogun would be placed furthest.

In Monday’s class session, we examined the African continent broadly, discussing Africa’s contentious role in world history. To better understand Africa’s role in the world, it is important to identify the perspective in which we are learning. Examples of the two “extremes” of these views are Eurocentric and Afrocentric perspectives. This Eurocentric view implies that Africa played a minor role in world history and that the European Enlightenment was responsible for creating the modern world.

Afrocentrism is the worldview that is centered around Africa and the African people. It also stresses the idea that the world and humankind descend from African origins. Dr. Ibra Sene also spoke about the notion that before the “modern era” and the Enlightenment, Africa was not seen as different. Africa, Asia, and Europe were all interrelated and were connected through things like trade and religion. Another significant development for Africa was the African Slave Trade or the Triangular Trade. Dr. Sene spoke about the fact that many parts of the Americas were created through the African Slave Trade, including several well-known colleges and universities.

Overall, we learned that the history of Africa is much too deep and complex to be able to grasp in one lesson, but we can begin to understand the implications of Euro-focused perspectives on Africa and develop a nuanced view.

This Monday we explored Africa’s ‘contentious’ role in world history. Before the transatlantic African slave trade, Africa was viewed as contiguous with the rest of the world. For instance, the Trans-Saharan Trade connected sub-Saharan Africa to the Mediterranean and west Asia. Additionally, Arabic script would be used to transcribe and record many African languages. The European Age of Discovery would come to redefine Africa from being large, complex, and diverse to being ‘uncivilized’ and immature.

Despite Africa’s active role in the premodern world, enlightenment scholars wrote off Africa’s historical significance as being both minor and isolated. These scholars wrote about Africa in a vacuum, historicizing its place in the world as being subordinate. Professor Ibra Sene explained that the Eurocentric frameworks we use to study civilizations are biased by the European model of civilization. For example, early Enlightenment historians like Hegel viewed history as a study of written documents. Africa has a rich history of civilizations that do not use written script which automatically excluded them from being viewed and studied as ‘civilized.’ In addition, influential historians narrowly analyzed world history as simply a continuation of certain races and civilizations. The fault in this thinking is its teleological and exclusionary basis as it presumes that Europe is the height of civilization and that ‘development’ is not a trans-regional phenomenon, being exclusive to Europe and those it deems civilized.