Week 3: Why do you think that both Liang Qichao and He Zhen developed their politics on China while they were away from the country? Have you experienced something similar, where travel, or moving away shifted your self-identification? Why do you think their views on nationalism diverged, even though they were reading many of the same texts and thinking about similar questions about the modern world and China’s place in it?
I think getting an outside perspective is essential when it comes to developing well thought out opinions. This perfectly explains why Liang Qichao and He Zhen would have more developed politics on China while away from the country. This provides not only the opportunity to be removed from the action and have time to process one’s thoughts, but it also allows for the inputs of different people. Being able to speak to someone about a certain issue, someone who is not actively involved, allows for an entirely new outlook. I have not had that many chances unfortunately to travel, but I did notice my thoughts about my hometown shifted when I left for college. After not living in the same town, let alone the same state for many months at a time, and then coming back during the time of tourists, I saw the entire place through a whole new light.
I think that Liang Qichao and He Zhen’s view on nationalism diverged, despite reading similar materials, because they talked to different people and separated themselves from China in completely different areas. Where Liang went to Hawaii, He found herself in Japan, meaning that the conversations surrounding nationalism, imperialism, and colonialism were different and with very different people. The population makeup was different, culture was different, language was different, distance from China was different, they were in separate environments completely. So, despite asking similar questions and reading many of the same texts, the people they interacted with, and therefore share thoughts with, differed, thus making their own opinions differ too.
Week 4: What do you think prompted so many Koreans into direct action against Japanese colonial rule? How much of it do you think was the language of the March 1, 1919 Declaration of Independence, and how much were other factors that Shin mentions? Answer this question by thinking about what might prompt you into actions at some moments and not at others. Have you ever felt compelled to act in ways that surprised you?
I think it was the language within the March 1, 1919 Declaration of Independence combined with the timeline of events that led so many Koreans into direct action against Japanese colonial rule. The language in the declaration is incredibly motivating and positive. It strives to put the perseverance and prosperity of Korea ahead of any negative view of other nations, “Our task today is to build up our own strength, not to destroy others” (Declaration of Independence, 1). I think this made the cause look incredibly hopeful and worthwhile, since it focused on the their own strength, about growth rather than destruction. At the same time, I think the timeline of the whole thing also played a large role into the amount of involvement. The occupation of Korea by Japan was a relatively new thing. Though it had lasted almost a decade, this intrusive involvement was not eternal, unlike some other occupations. The fact that it was a new event, at the turn of the century, one with the assumption that it would be a historical, modernizing century, helped encourage Koreans to take direct action. This is not what was supposed to be happening, things were supposed to be improving, countries were supposed to be independent. This occupation was a step backwards in the eyes of the modern world, and as a result saw many people take direct action to oppose it.
