Coming to an Understanding of 21st Century Iraq Through Film

I always find it odd that, although we have been at war in Iraq since 2003, and since we have been at odds with Iraq since 1990, most Americans have a very thin understanding of Iraqi culture. Additionally, Americans tend to have a very thin understanding of the current situation on the ground in Iraq, along with having a general lack of understanding of the dynamics of the American occupation of Iraq and the exact reasons for the occupation. Thankfully, there have been some EXCELLENT films that have been released in recent years that tackle those exact topics. In fact, I would like to share with you what I consider to be the ultimate Iraq trilogy. The first film is James Longley's 2006 documentary feature Iraq in Fragments. This film really gets to the heart of the reason for instability in Iraq--the deep divisions between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. A second important film is Laura Poitras' 2006 documentary feature My Country, My Country. This film explores the challenges and difficulties of introducing the democratic process in Iraq, a country with no previous tradition of democracy. The film explores this topic by highlighting the campaign of an Iraqi politician in the first elections in that country's history. The third film is perhaps the most powerful of three, and that is Charles Ferguson's 2007 documentary feature No End in Sight. I will put it this way: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT IRAQ WAR UNTIL YOU SEE THIS FILM! The trailers for all three films can be viewed below. I do hope that many of you will take the time to see these films. A responsible citizen would want to be fully informed about conflicts his country is engaged in and would want to understand fully the culture of countries the US is in conflict with.

Understanding Iran Through Iranian Film

Because of the current nature of US relations with Iran, Americans tend to have a very blurred and unrealistic view of Iranian culture as a whole. Taking the time to actually explore the arts of Iran can help to subside that however. For me, some of the most beautiful and thought provoking films to be released recently have been Iranian films. The elegance in which Iranian directors are taking on societal issues is truly remarkable. While the number of quality Iranian films are too numerous to list here, I do have two major recommendations in helping one to (1) come to an appreciation of the greatness of Iranian film and (2) come to a greater understanding of Iranian culture as a whole. Perhaps the Iranian director that is most respected and the most highly regarded in the film community is Abbas Kiarostami, and perhaps his most critically acclaimed film is his 1997 masterpiece Taste of Cherry. The characters that emerge throughout the film are truly symbolic of a very multi-faceted Iranian society. The topic of gender issues in Iran has been a controversial topic since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For me, Jafar Pahani's 2006 film Offside does an excellent job of tackling this issue in a very creative way, through the world of football (soccer). Trailers for both films can be viewed below.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis

Since the early 1950s, the United States had supported the shah of Iran’s government, mainly as a supplier of oil and as a check on the Soviet Union’s influence in the Middle East. By the late 1970s, the shah had become increasingly unpopular in Iran because of his repressive control and his efforts to westernize the country. When public demonstrations broke out in early 1979, the shah fled Iran, and a powerful fundamentalist Islamic revolution, led by exiled religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, swept the country. Days after President Jimmy Carter permitted the shah to enter the United States for medical treatment, militant Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy and took Americans hostage. The students demanded the return of the shah to Iran in exchange for the hostages’ freedom. To complicate matters, the Soviet Union invaded neighboring Afghanistan just a few weeks after the hostages were seized. President Carter tried unsuccessfully to negotiate the release of the hostages and even ordered a secret military rescue mission that failed. Finally, the hostages were released after 444 days in captivity. The document that I would like you to read comes from a congressional hearing on the Iranian crisis, where former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie and deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher testified on behalf of the Carter administration (you can read it by clicking here).

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the central issues of this hearing? What was the impact of the hostage crisis on the United States? How does Secretary of State Muskie defend the American position? Why was the hostage crisis significant? Your thoughts…

Islamic Law in the Modern World

Ruhollah Khomeini, whose name is synonymous with Islamic fundamentalism and Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979, was born in 1902 in Khumayn, an Iranian village some sixty miles southwest of Tehran. Following the example of his father and grandfather, he became a religious scholar, and by the late 1930s was director of the prestigious school of Islamic studies in Qum, a pilgrimage site and the spiritual center for Iran’s Shia Muslims. In the late 1950s he became a vocal critic of Iran’s reigning monarch, Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, attacking him for his pro-U.S. policies, dictatorial rule, and efforts to diminish Islam’s role in Iranian life. In 1963, the arrest and imprisonment of Khomeini led to nationwide anti-government demonstrations and rioting, which were suppressed by army troops at the cost of thousands of lives. Released from prison and sent into exile in 1964, Khomeini continued to denounce the shah, whose secularism, heavy-handed rule, corrupt government, and ill-conceived economic policies continued to cause widespread discontent. In January 1978 rioting again broke out in Qum, this time sparked by Khomeini and other religious leaders, took to the streets chanting “death to the shah.” In early 1979 events moved quickly. In January the shah left the country; in February Khomeini returned from exile; and in March a national referendum approved the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran’s new government was a republic in name only. Although it had an elected parliament and president, it was dominated by Khomeini and a small circle of like-minded Islamic clerics. During the 1980s they purged the shah’s supporters from government, suppressed political opponents, instituted religious courts to enforce Islamic law, and used the army and schools as instruments of religious indoctrination. Although Khomeini had promised to address the problems of poverty and social inequality, his efforts foundered in the face of war with Iraq, inflation, and population growth at the rate of 4 percent a year. Nonetheless, by the time of his death in 1989 millions of Muslims in Iran and elsewhere venerated Khomeini as a heroic defender of their religion against the forces of secularism and imperialism, and his austere, uncompromising version of Islam had become a major force in world politics.

The document I would like you to read is an excerpt from Islamic Government, Khomeini’s best-known work (you can read it by clicking here). The book was based on a series of lectures he delivered in 1970 while in exile to students at a religious school in the Iraqi city of Najaf. It is not a complete exposition of Islamic political philosophy; nor does it provide a detailed outline of what an Islamic state would be like. Khomeini’s goal was to inspire his student listeners to work for the establishment of an Islamic state and to assume executive and judicial positions within it.

After you have read the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: Whom does Khomeini identify as the enemies of Islam? What are these enemies’ goals? How, according to Khomeini, do the enemies of Islam distort Islamic doctrine and practice? How does he counter their arguments? How does Khomeini characterize the relationship between Islam and modern science and technology? What are the shortcomings of existing governments in the Islamic world according to Khomeini? What benefits will accrue to society if Islamic laws are rigorously enforced? What is the meaning of the term jihad as used by Khomeini in this treatise? What similarities and differences do you see between Khomeini’s ideas and those of the Muslim Brotherhood? Your thoughts…

The Resurgence of Islam

One of the most important trends in recent decades has been the renaissance of faith among Muslims. Often referred to as the “resurgence of Islam,” this development began in the Middle East and North Africa and subsequently spread in all directions, reaching countries such as Indonesia and Nigeria as well as numerous cities in Europe and the Americas. For the past quarter-century or so mosque attendance has been increasing, traditional Islamic dress for women has been in favor, Muslim men have been growing their beards long, and the appeal of Islamic grassroots organizations (including those located at universities) has surged.

Muslims have also made a dramatic impact on political life. In 1979 Shiite clerics in Iran, led by the charismatic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, rode to power on a massive wave of popular discontent, replacing the rule of the secularist Pahlavi shahs with a republican regime based on Islamic law. Two years later Muslim extremists in the Egyptian army assassinated Anwar el-Sadat, the Egyptian leader who had earlier normalized relations with Israel. During the 1980s and 1990s in Sudan, the largest country in Africa, a series of authoritarian governments led by Sunni Muslims imposed the shari’a. In 1996 the Taliban, an insurgent army of fundamentalist Muslims seized control of most of Afghanistan and began enforcing an unusually narrow version of Islamic teachings. For Americans, of course, the most shocking examples of Islamic political activism were the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

In many Muslim countries nongovernmental Islamic organizations that sponsor schools and social services have become increasingly popular. Such organizations are descendants of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fraternal order founded in 1928 by Egyptian schoolteacher Hasan al-Banna. Banna believed that by establishing Islamic schools, nurseries, summer camps, and low-cost health clinics, the Brotherhood could gradually persuade Muslims to incorporate the shari’a into their daily lives. He thought once people had absorbed Islamic teachings, political change would naturally follow. Banna was assassinated in 1949, probably by the Egyptian secret police, and during the next two decades the secular nationalist government of Gamal Abdel Nasser harshly repressed the Brotherhood. Despite the crackdown, the organization became increasingly influential in Egyptian life. In present-day Egypt, the Brotherhood’s vast network of schools, social service agencies, and professional associations makes it a most serious worry of the government of Hosni Mubarak. Similar organizations, some of them offshoots of the Brotherhood, flourish in Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan, the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and in numerous other Muslim countries.

In the first document I would like you to read (you can read them both by clicking here), Banna explains the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood during its formative period and enables us to see how the Islamic revival was initially shaped by developments in the 1920s through the 1940s. The second document is a speech given in March of 1980 by Ayatollah Khomeini. His address, which was given on the Iranian New Year, provides insight into the ideas of one of the most important leaders of the Islamic resurgence.

After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How do the documents help us put recent developments in Islam into historical context? How did Banna explain the resurgence of Islam? What aspects of the West did he oppose? What did he see as the strengths of Islam? What was his view of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism? What are Khomeini’s main themes in his New Year’s address? What are his chief worries? What can you infer about the stability of his regime at the time of the speech? What types of changes—political, economic, social, or religious—did he seem to be advocating? How do the ideas of Banna and Khomeini compare? Do you see any differences? How do the ideas of Banna and Khomeini compare with the thinking of Ziya Gokalp and Mustafa Kemal? How do you explain the differences? What are the advantages and disadvantages of separating political authority from religious authority? What are the similarities and differences between the Iranian revolution and the leftist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba? Are any of these revolutions likely to be emulated in the future? Your thoughts…

Films Tackling the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Perhaps one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world currently is in Palestine. While Americans hear about it all the time, few really are able to envision it or understand it. Again, thanks to the wonders of documentary film and foriegn film, there are a couple of excellent outlets to get a accurate visual picture of the current situation in Palestine. One is the magnificent 2001 documentary feature film Promises. One comes to an understanding of the nonstop cycle of hatred by hearing the words of children. For a more lighthearted take on the situation, but still altogether profound, I HIGHLY recommend a film that was one of my favorite films of 2007, Eran Kolirin's masterwork The Band's Visit. Most recently, Ari Folman's animated documentary feature Waltz With Bashir got a lot of awards attention last year for its unique depiction of the Israeli war against the Arab state of Lebanon. Trailers for all three films can be seen below. There is one other masterpiece of a film on the subject, but I will let you in on that film next week because it will be the sixth and final film of the Season 5 Film Festival.

Middle Eastern Dreams in Conflict: Israelis and Palestinians

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has embittered the people of the Middle East and elsewhere for the past half-century is rooted in two powerful and contradictory claims to the same territory. Each of the two parties invokes history and love of the land in defense of its claims. Beginning in the 1890s European Jews, responding to an upsurge of anti-Semitic prejudice, organized the Zionist movement in order to establish a “national home” in Palestine. At that time Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and was inhabited largely by Arab Muslims. In the years following World War I, when the British ruled Palestine as a League of Nations Mandate, European Jews began to migrate to Palestine in large numbers, a process greatly accelerated during the and after World War II due to the Holocaust. The withdrawal of the British from Palestine and the proclamation of the independent state of Israel in 1948 made the Zionist dream a reality.

Palestine, however, had been part of the Arab Muslim world since the 7th century. Palestinians resented the coming of the Jewish colonists and they opposed the founding of the new Israeli state, as did most other Arabs in the region. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced into exile in the late 1940s, victims of the conflicts surrounding the establishment of the Israeli state. Subsequent wars between Israel and neighboring Arab states in 1967, 1973, and 1982 increased the amount of territory—and the number of Palestinians—subject to Israeli authority, most notably in the region west of the Jordan River known as the West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip.

Determined to regain their homeland and to establish an independent Palestinian state (sentiments that constitute a kind of “Zionism in reverse”), in 1964 Palestinian leaders founded the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO was initially popular among ordinary Palestinians and is still the leading Palestinian political organization. However, since the late 1980s Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement), which combines religious and political goals, has emerged as a serious rival of the PLO for the leadership of the Palestinian cause. Like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas has established a huge network of educational and social welfare institutions as a step toward the establishment of an independent Palestine based on Islamic law.

Hamas has also played a leading role in carrying out a variety of violent actions, including suicide bombings, aimed at ending Israeli rule over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Viewers of television news reports are well aware of the harsh repression carried out by the Israeli military forces against the Palestinian intifada (literally, a “shaking off”) in recent years (as recently as the early part of 2009). Each side sees its use of violence as justified by the wrongs committed by the other. The situation has deteriorated to the point that a wall was built around the West Bank and completed in 2007 (you can read the BBC News piece on that by clicking here).

The documents that I would like you to read are a mixture of personal statements, official proclamations, and maps (you can read all of them by clicking here). In the first piece Nahum Goldman, an early Zionist from Germany, discusses his first visit to Palestine in 1913. The document that follows is the 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. In the third document, Fawaz Turki, a Palestinian writer, recalls his family’s flight from Palestine in 1948 and his subsequent childhood as an exile. The fourth document is the Palestinian National Charter, which was issued by the Palestinian National Congress in 1968. Two maps that help to clarify the major territorial changes from the 1940s through the present can also be viewed by clicking here for the early map and here for the current.

After reading the documents and studying the maps, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How do the documents and the maps illuminate the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Why did Nahum Goldman decide to go to Palestine in 1913, and remain there after his friends retuned home to Germany? What kinds of contacts did Goldman have with Palestinian Arabs? What reasons does the 1948 Israeli Declaration provide for the establishment of the new state? How is the matter of the indigenous Arab/Palestinian population addressed? What does Fawaz Turki reveal about the standard of living in the Palestinian refugee camps? What attitudes did Turki encounter in the host countries where the refugee camps were located? How does Turki explain the growing strength of Palestinian nationalism? What do you think of his view that Western countries are partly responsible for the conflicts in the Middle East? How does the 1968 Palestinian National Charter compare with the 1948 Israeli Declaration? Based on your reading of these two documents, do you see any hope for compromise? What is the relationship between Israeli and Palestinian nationalism in other parts of the world? What similarities and differences do you see? What has been the trend since 1914 regarding conflicts between people of different nationalities and religions? Have the conflicts ebbed and flowed, increased overall, stayed the same, or decreased overall? How do you explain this? How does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compare with ethnic conflict in the Balkans? What do the maps suggest about the reasons for the intensity of the present-day conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis? What have been the big changes since the 1940s? How do you explain the changes? How might the maps be used to propose a resolution of the conflict? Is the solution the establishment of an independent Palestine adjacent to Israel? What areas would the borders of a Palestinian state include? Or, should there be one “bi-national” state that includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, with all of their current residents? Your thoughts…

The 4th Film of the Season 5 Film Festival Will Be Vincent Paronnaud and Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis" on Friday, April 17th (2 Spots Left)

To cap our discussion regarding issues of the modern Middle East, I am very excited to screen in my room, the 2007 animated feature Persepolis written and directed by Vincent Paronnaud and Marjane Satrapi (we also wrote the original autobiographical graphic novel). In summary, in 1970s Iran, Marjane 'Marji' Statrapi watches events through her young eyes and her idealistic family of a long dream being fulfilled of the hated Shah's defeat in the Iranian Revolution of 1979. However as Marji grows up, she witnesses first hand how the new Iran, now ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, has become a repressive tyranny on its own. With Marji dangerously refusing to remain silent at this injustice, her parents send her abroad to Vienna to study for a better life. However, this change proves an equally difficult trial with the young woman finding herself in a different culture loaded with abrasive characters and profound disappointments that deeply trouble her. Even when she returns home, Marji finds that both she and homeland have changed too much and the young woman and her loving family must decide where she truly belongs. This is a film that I highly recommend, and I look forward to seeing as many as possible come out to see it on Friday, April 17th at 2:30 pm. Remember, only 30 spots are available, so please sign up early. Persepolis is in French with English subtitles, it is rated PG-13, and it has a runtime of 96 minutes. A trailer for the film can be viewed below.

"To Live" Discussion Board

Well this was my 3rd time seeing this film, and it is still powerful and candid. It's always good discuss the subject matter in class, and then see the film afterward. Hopefully you picked up on the many things in the film that we have talked about this week. Did you notice the prominent use of the backyard furnaces for example during the Great Leap Forward? Of course, the ending, centered around the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is still devastating for me. For the 20 of you all that came today, what did you think of the film? Discuss...

Oh, and don't forget, Persepolis is Friday!

Films Tackling Issues of Modern India

What was that? You STILL haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire? What exactly are you waiting for? It is now on DVD, and yes it does live up to all of the hype. Perhaps that should be weekend rental this weekend. Or, if you prefer something a little bit more obscure, but completely thought provoking that tackles issues of women's roles in modern India, perhaps you should check out Deepa Mehta's 2005 film Water. It comes highly recommended from me as well. Both trailers can be viewed below.

Will the Green Revolution Ultimately Destroy India?

With all of the garbage that the news media feeds us on a daily basis, I must say it is refreshing and timely that NPR still has the journalistic integrity to put out deep and thought provoking news stories that don't insult the listener. This week on NPR's morning show, "Morning Edition," journalist Daniel Zwerdling is taking on the issue of India's Green Revolution (which we discussed today incidentally) heading for collapse. It is a two-part story that deserves your attention. Thankfully with NPR, if you prefer to simply listen to the radio broadcasts of the story, you can do that, or you can read the story. In any case, please give this story your attention, and I am very interested in getting your thoughts on it. Both parts can be easily accessed by clicking on the following links: Part I and Part II. Your thoughts???

Love and Marriage in Modern India

The establishment of Indian independence in 1947 led to important legal reforms in gender relations. Voting rights were extended to women by the Constitution of 1950, which also outlawed discrimination by sex. Laws adopted somewhat later provided for divorce by mutual consent, banned polygamy (except among Indian Muslims), and established the right of women to have abortions.

The new laws benefited upper-class, well-educated Hindu women who took advantage of increased opportunities for careers in politics, business, and education. However, regardless of the law and their abilities, career women in India were often unable to win acceptance as equals by their male colleagues and associates. Circumstances were far worse for the hundreds of millions of poor women, most of who lived in India’s 560,000 rural villages. For these women, issues such as access to the most minimal level of education, obtaining adequate nutriction and basic health care (especially relating to childbirth), and opportunities for paid work of any kind remained major concerns.

In the 1970s, the continuing obstacles Indian women faced led to the emergence of a feminist movement. As their counterparts did in other countries, Indian feminists founded organizations and journals, conducted research on gender issues, lobbied governmental officials, became active in the labor movement, ran for public office, and organized protest demonstrations. The striking achievements in recent decades of female Indian writers such as Anita Desai, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, Gita Mehta, and Arundhati Roy gave literary expression to the new feminist activism.

Indian feminists have had to face more difficult challenges compared to their counterparts in the West. The tradition of purdah (the physical exclusion of women) continues to be significant in India’s villages. In addition, owing to widespread poverty and the social pressure on families to provide dowries for their daughters, female infanticide in some rural regions is still a serious problem. Finally, there is widespread prejudice in India against widows, a lingering legacy of the once-significant practice of widow-suicide (sati).

As the product of Indian realities (as well as contacts with feminists in the West and elsewhere), the views of Indian feminists have their own distinctiveness. The document by Madhu Kishwar (that I would like you to read by clicking here), one of India’s leading feminists, provides us with an interesting illustration of this point. Kishwar’s essay, which appeared in the journal Manushi (Woman), argues in favor of what she calls “family-arranged” marriage (which is still the way most marriages come about in India), as opposed to Western-style “self-arranged” marriage. The article led to much debate in the pages of Manushi and should not be understood as the authoritative view of India’s feminists on the issue of marriage. It is, nonetheless, an important statement and is included here because of the window it open on important aspects of Indian society and culture in the 20th century.

After reading the article, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: According to Madhu Kishwar, what is wrong with the idea of “love marriage?” Why does she believe that “self-arranged” marriage is a more useful term than “love marriage?” What advantages does Kishwar see in “family-arranged” marriages? What problems does she acknowledge in family-arranged marriages? Is there a contradiction between family-arranged marriages and love between spouses? What does this article suggest about the emotional life of Indian married couples? About the importance of individualism in India? Is Kishwar’s portrait of marriage in the West accurate? How do the gender and family circumstances described by Kishwar in the 1990s compare with those described by Manmohini Sahgal in the 1920s? Were there significant changes? How do the views of Kishwar compare with those of Higuchi Keiko on here? Your thoughts…

The Place of Hinduism in Modern India

India since independence has never been free of religious tensions. Even after Muslims were given their own state of Pakistan in 1947, religious pluralism characterized India’s population: Today it is composed of approximately 83 percent Hindus, 11 percent Muslims, 2.6 percent Christians, slightly over 1 percent Sikhs, and smaller numbers of Jains, Parsis, and Buddhists. None of these groups has been completely satisfied with India’s constitution, which states that India is a secular state with partiality toward no religious group. Many Hindus are convinced the government bends over backward to protect Muslims and Sikhs; Muslims and Sikhs, conversely, are equally certain that the government panders to Hindus. In the early 1980s religious tensions intensified as Muslims began to make converts among low-caste Hindus in the south, Sikhs agitated for an independent Punjab, and Hindus organized their own political party, the Bharatiya Janata (Indian’s People’s Party), or BJP, whose goal was the “Hinduization” of India. Founded in 1982, the BJP increased its representation in parliament from two members in 1984 to 185 in 1996, fifty more than that of the Congress Party, which had enjoyed a parliamentary majority in all but four years since 1947.

An important spokesman for Hindu nationalism and the BJP before his death in 1993 was the journalist Girilal Jain, who was editor-in-chief of the New Delhi Times of India between 1978 and 1988. Born into a poor rural family in 1922 and educated at Delhi University, Jain was jailed by the British during the 1942 Quit India campaign. As a journalist he was best known for his impassioned support of Indira Gandhi, prime minister from 1966 to 1970 and 1980 to 1984. During the 19080s he was drawn to Hindu nationalism and the BJP.

The editorials that I would like you to read (you can read them by clicking here) were written in 1990, when Hindu-Muslim tensions were peaking over the Babri mosque in the city of Ayodhya, built in the sixteenth century on the site of a Hindu temple believed to be the birthplace of the Hindu god-king Ram. Hindus demanded the destruction of the mosque, which was no longer used, so a temple in honor of Ram could be built. In December 1992, Hindus stormed the mosque and destroyed it, precipitating a government crisis and causing violence that took the lives of thousands. The government, with its commitment to religious pluralism and democracy, survived, but religious tensions remained high.

After reading the editorials, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the reasons for Jain’s disenchantment with India’s government? What does Jain mean when he says that the issues that concern the BJP have to do with “civilization,” not religion? How does Jain define the West? How does he view the West’s role in Indian history? Why, according to Jain, is the controversy over the Ayodhya mosque so significant for India’s future? In Jain’s viewpoint, why have the Muslims been satisfied to go along with the secularist policies of the Indian state? What is Jain’s vision of India’s future?

Films That Address Issues Regarding Modern China and Modern Japan

It would be fair to say that there are a plethora of films that address issues that both modern China and modern Japan face. Below are two of my personal recommendations. First of all, Xiaoshuai Wang's 2001 film Beijing Bicycle is a phenomenal take on life in current day Beijing. It especially deals with current rifts that exist societally between the urbanites of China and the rural peasants that are immigrating into Chinese cities at rapid rates. Some in my group going with me to China in July have seen this film already, and we were all blown away by its tenacity, its honesty, and its symbolism. My recommendation for a film that deals with current issues in Japan is Masayuki Suo's 1996 masterpiece Shall we Dansu? This is not to be confused with the cheap pointless Jennifer Lopez-Richard Gere remake. No, this a serious take on issues regarding selective borrowing and the importance of tradition versus progress in modern Japanese culture. The film is deep, it's heartfelt, and it's obviously quite personal. It also evolved into a huge phenomenon in Japan during the 1990s. You can check out trailers for both films below, and hopefully you'll be able to check out one or both in order to increase your depth of understanding of these two dynamic cultures.

Beijing Bicylce Clip and Trailer



Shall We Dansu? Trailer

Modern Japan: Corporate Management and Gender Relations

Japan’s emergence as a modern industrial society was one of the key developments of the second half of the 20th century. At the end of World War II the country lay in ruins. However, postwar economic growth—the Japanese “miracle”—soon overcame the destructiveness of the war. By 1965 the Japanese economy was nearly four times as productive as it had been in the 1930s. At the beginning of the 21st century, the size of the Japanese GNP was second only to that of the United States and living standards were among the highest worldwide.

The dynamic growth of Japanese industry and agriculture was accompanied by the rapid urbanization of the country. All three developments had major implications for gender relations. The extended family of the countryside was replaced by the urban nuclear family. Rising material standards boosted life expectancy for both men and women (making for potentially much longer marriages), while the number of children born to the average woman fell sharply. The two documents that I would like you to read were written in the 1980s and address the issues of economic organization and gender structures in modern Japan (you can read them both by clicking here). In the first excerpt, Morita Akio, one of the founders of the Sony Corporation, discusses his influential approach to managing a large enterprise. The second document, by the feminist author and political activist Higuchi Keiko, explores the impact of recent economic developments on relations between men and women.

After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How do the two selections provide information on the interplay between change and continuity in modern Japan? How does Morita’s advice combine the need to earn profit with the desire to reinforce key Japanese cultural traditions? To what extent can or should a modern corporation be a family? Do Morita’s ideas imply a criticism of management styles in other countries, such as the United States? Was the distinctive management style described by Morita a leading cause of Japan’s economic growth from the 1950s onward? What other factors may have been involved? Is Morita’s advice still appropriate for the 21st century? What developments since the 1980s might raise doubts about the applicability of Morita’s ideas today? According to Higuchi, how did gender relations begin to change in the 1970s? What caused these changes? Is economic growth the explanation, or were there other factors that were important? What does her article suggest about the growth of consumerism in Japan? To what extent do Higuchi and Morita provide evidence for the interplay between change and continuity in modern Japan? Your thoughts…

Communism, Chinese Style: Peasants and Students

When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1912 the great majority of Chinese—perhaps 80 percent of the population—lived in the countryside. Farms were quite small by Western standards, averaging from three to five acres (compared with about 150 acres in the United States). Perhaps a third of the rural population was landless; peasants without their own land were forced to rent plots from prosperous landowners, often at very high rates. Many other peasants owned plots that were too small for them to survive on; they too were compelled to rent land.

During the 1930s and 1940s conditions worsened for Chinese peasants in significant ways. The worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s hit the Chinese economy hard and drove down the living standards of both urban and rural dwellers. World War II, which began for the Chinese with the Japanese invasion of 1937, devastated much of the rural economy. Most of the 10 million Chinese who died in the fighting were peasants. In the subsequent Civil War of 1946 to 1949 between the Communists and the Nationalists, the farming economy was battered once again, bringing the suffering of the peasants to a new low.

The question of how Chinese peasants—who remain today the majority of the population—have fared under Communist rule is addressed in the first document I would like you to read (you can read all of the documents by clicking here), the brief 1984 memoir of Wang Xin. A peasant who was born near Beijing in 1941, Wang’s recollections are somewhat propagandistic, but they nonetheless help us to see how circumstances changed for hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants during the era of Mao and then changed again as a result of the sweeping economic reforms introduced by Mao’s successor Deng Xiaoping during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Deng’s economic reforms, which essentially de-collectivized the economy, restored private ownership, and established a good deal of market freedom, triggered a surge of rapid growth that has continued into the 21st century. One of the consequences of the resulting dramatic rise in living standards—which for millions of Chinese now far exceed the level enjoyed by Wang Xin in the early 1980s—was the growth of pressure for political reform and a democratic political system. The most dramatic illustration of the desire for political change in the post-Mao era occurred in the spring of 1989 when university students organized and led a powerful movement for democracy.

In April of that year students from leading universities in Beijing conducted peaceful demonstrations following the death of a Party official who had been sympathetic to the cause of reform. Confused by the demonstrations and frightened by the possibility that the students might find allies among the broader population, Party leaders dithered for several weeks while the protests grew and spread across the country. In May thousands of students occupied Tiananmen (Heavenly Peace) Square, the vast space that has symbolized political authority in China since the 15th century and the site of famous student protests on May 4, 1919. A speech given on the anniversary of the 1919 demonstrations by Wuer Kaixi, one of the best-known student leaders in 1989, is the second document I would like you to read. One month after Wuer’s speech, on the night of June 3-4, the authorities crushed the demonstrations. Since June 1989, China has been politically quiescent, although the recent huge demonstrations for reform in Hong Kong, which the British returned to China in 1997, echo many of the goals of the students in Tiananmen.

After reading both documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How did Wang Xin and his family benefit from policies introduced by the Communists after 1949? What evidence is there in Wang’s memoir of problems in China during the period of Communist rule? How did Chinese agricultural policies of the 1980s differ from those of the Mao period? What hints does Wang’s memoir contain regarding the continuing importance of Confucian values in China? Why does Wuer Kaixi think China needs democracy? Is he correct about the connection between science and democracy, or is this wishful thinking? How does Wuer define “modernization?” Does a society require democracy in order to be modern? Do you think Wang Xin was a likely supporter of the 1989 democracy movement? How do Wuer Kaixi’s ideas compare with those of Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong? Why did Communism collapse in Russia but not in China? Your thoughts…

The Season 5 Film Festival Continues With Zhang Yimou's "To Live" on Wednesday, April 15th (Still 7 Spots Left)

Ladies and gentlemen, the first two films of our film festival have been a complete success. Thanks to everyone for coming out and being an outstanding audience. Our film festival will continue after spring break on Wednesday, April 15th with the screening of Zhang Yimou's 1994 classic To Live. After discussing the Mao era of leadership in China, this is a film that you will definitely want to see. I can't say enough about this film, but if you'd like you can read my review of the film by clicking here. As always, the film will start at 2:30pm in my room, only 30 spots are available, and no extra credit will be offered. To Live is in Mandarin with English subtitles (BUT DO NOT LET THAT BE A DETERRENT), and it has a runtime of 2 hours and 5 minutes. I hope to see you there. You can view the trailer below.

China’s New Course

Of all the events that took place in the closing decades of the twentieth century, China’s full entry into the global economy and its decision to commit itself to economic development may in the long run prove to be the most significant. Since its emergence as a unified empire in the third century B.C.E, China for many centuries was the world’s most successful state in terms of size, wealth, technological sophistication, and the continuity of its political institutions. This was easy to forget in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when China became a pawn of the Western powers and a victim of political disintegration, military defeat, and deepening poverty. In the 1980s, however, China’s leaders set a new course for their country, which, if successful, might well restore China to its preeminence in Asia, if not its primacy among the world’s powers.

The man responsible for launching China on its new path was Deng Xiaoping. Born into the family of a well-off landowner in 1904, Deng studied in China and then in France after World War I. Having run out of funds, he worked in a French factory before returning to China by way of the Soviet Union, where he studied in 1925-1926. On his return to China he joined the Communist Party and became one of Mao’s most loyal followers in the struggle against the Japanese and the Guomindang.

After 1949 Deng became a member of the politburo and party secretary general, with responsibilities for overseeing economic development in southwest China. He supported the strategy of developing China’s economy by following the Stalinist model of agricultural collectivization, centralized planning, and investment in heavy industry. This was scrapped in 1958 when Mao instituted the Great Leap Forward. In a little more than two years, some 24,000 People’s Communes were established, each containing approximately 30,000 people who performed industrial and agricultural work, received political indoctrination, and participated in various social experiments. The Great Leap Forward was an economic disaster, and in its wake, Deng and other moderates were responsible for dismantling the communes and reintroducing centralized planning.

This made Deng a prime candidate for vilification after Mao launched the Great Cultural Revolution in 1966. Designed to revive revolutionary fervor and rescue China from materialism and Soviet-style bureaucratization, the revolution unleashed the energies of millions of young people who were urged to rise up and smash “bourgeois” elements throughout society. Deng fell from power, was paraded through the streets in a dunce cap, and put to work in a mess hall and a tractor repair shop. As the intensity of the Cultural Revolution faded, Deng was reinstated as a party official, and after Mao’s death he led the moderates in their struggle with the radical faction led by Mao’s widow, Jiang Qing. Deng’s faction won, and in December 1978, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party officially abandoned Mao’s emphasis on ideology and class struggle in favor of a moderate, pragmatic policy designed to achieve the Four Modernizations in agriculture, industry, science and technology, and the military.

To encourage economic growth, the government fostered free markets, competition, and private incentives. Although Deng claimed that China had entered its “second revolution,” it was an economic revolution only. Reformers who demanded the “Fifth Modernization”—democracy—were arrested and silenced in 1979. When millions of Chinese demonstrated for democracy in the spring of 1989, the government crushed the demonstration in Beijing with soldiers and tanks, thus assuring the continuation of the party dictatorship. After 1989 Deng withdrew from public life and died in early 1997. The excerpts I would like you to read are from speeches and interviews given by Deng between 1983 and 1986. You can read them by clicking here.

After reading the excerpts, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Deng, what had been the shortcomings of China’s economic development planning under Mao Zedong? According to Deng, how is China’s new economic policy truly Marxist and truly socialist? How does Deng view China’s role in the world? What implications will China’s new economic priorities have for its foreign policy? What is Deng’s rationale for opposing democracy in China? What similarities and differences do you see between Deng’s economic program for China and Stalin's plans for the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and 1930s? What similarities and differences do you see between Gorbachev's statements about perestroika and Deng’s comments about the needs of China? Your thoughts…

Mao Zedong: Chinese Revolutionary

In contrast to the ineffective Chiang Kai-shek, China’s rural based Communist Party, led by Mao Zedong, organized a strong and popular resistance movement against the Japanese during the Second World War. By the end of World War II the Communist Party claimed millions of members, had its own large and battle-tested army, and governed much of northern China. Attempts by the United States to reconcile the Communists and the Nationalists in 1945 and 1946 quickly broke down. The result was full-scale civil war. In 1949 the Communists swept to power—moving from the countryside to the cities and from north to south—and they have governed the country ever since.

The document I would like you to read is from a famous speech given by Mao Zedong in September 1949 just prior to the Communist defeat of the Nationalists on the mainland. You can read the speech by clicking here.

After you have read the speech, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How does Mao’s address reflect his understanding of Chinese history? What was the basis for Mao’s claim that the Chinese people “stood up” in 1949? What did Mao mean by “people’s democratic dictatorship?” To what extent does his address blend nationalist and communist goals? Which theme seems more important in the speech, nationalism or communism? What similarities and differences do you see in the ideas of Sun and Mao? Did they have a common understanding of China’s modern history? How do the ideas of Sun and Mao compare and contrast with those of the Chinese reformers around 1900? What are the major differences? How do you explain the differences? Compare the ideas of Mao with those of Lenin and Stalin. How do these communist leaders balance nationalist goals with the desire for world revolution?

A Story of a Revolutionary Heroine

For dedicated revolutionaries literature has one overriding purpose—to further the revolutionary cause. This certainly applies to the Chinese Communist author Cao Ming, whose many short stories and novels made heroes of Mao’s followers and villains of his opponents. Born in 1913 to a poor rural family, Cao Ming began her writing career with the publication of a short story in 1932. In the 1930s she wrote anti-Japanese propaganda after the invasion of Manchuria and became a member of the Communist Party in 1940. She spent the next eight years in Yan’an, here she worked with peasants and wrote stories that followed the party line. After the Communist victory in 1949 she held various government posts while continuing her writing.

One of Cao Ming’s best-known short stories is “A Native of Yan’an,” written in 1947, two years before the Communist victory. Its main character is an old, illiterate peasant woman, Granny Wu, whose self-sacrifice is held up as a model of dedication to the party. The story presents an idealized picture of Mao Zedong and his program while reviling his Guomindang enemies.

The story begins in 1937, when Granny Wu has a conversation with a courteous Red Army soldier who urges her to use her hands and mind to support the Communist cause. Only after speaking with her daughter-in-law does she realize that the officer was Mao Zedong himself. You can read portions of the short story by clicking here.

After reading from the short story, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What is the image of Mao portrayed in the short story? How is Granny Wu’s life transformed as a result of her conversation with Mao? What point is the author trying to make in this regard? What is the background of the individuals who gather to discuss Mao’s visit? What point is the author making here? What are the views of the townspeople about the ideals and achievements of the Communists? How do these views differ from those of the Guomindang? What is revealed about the Guomindang from the behavior of their troops? Your thoughts…