# data[].attributes.headline
First takeaway in M1: Confucian relationships & the stability in the Chinese social order

# data[].attributes.subject
First takeaway in M1: Confucian relationships & the stability in the Chinese social order

# data[].attributes.body
In Module #1, one of the key takeaways that I learned from this module was how Confucian ideals facilitated Chinese social order, leading to ruling dynasties having easier times wielding executive command over the Chinese people. This was because in Confucian society, other than "friends" there is always a dominant and subordinate relationship (parent & child, educated & uneducated, etc.)

In the required readings, the author has discussed how "a trend towards merit and education rather than birth as a qualification for high office. This was associated with the increasing power of the central government" (Mason, 54). In this, Mason shows how through one of the five cardinal relationships, being educated over uneducated, higher roles in society (in this case government office) was to be given through the imbalance, which correlates with Professor Chu's Module Objective #1. In this, I think that because Confucianism upheld the unequal dynamics in 4 out of the 5 cardinal relationships, the ruling Chinese dynasty at the time was almost always able to instill social order through dividing up the people and showing who has more power.

My understanding of each module #1 objective:

An overview of Asia:

Asia cannot be called one homogeneous entity. It has many different cultures, languages, writing systems, and customs. Some similarities between some of the Asian countries covered in APP 101 despite these differences however, are Buddhism and Rice.

Early Civilization in South Asia:

The Indus Valley civilization is a lost society (and we're not that much able to translate its history), but it had lived in where newer Indian civilizations would flourish, through the Indus river.

Describe the social and religious structures of traditional Indian society:

In India, while Buddhism and Hinduism both originated there, in India itself the predominant religion was Hinduism. Hinduism was polytheist, and accepting of other religions, and worshipped multiple gods. Also, in Hinduism there was a caste system which meant all the different people were in different social classes, which although abolished in the 20th century, still has its effects that permeate up until the modern day. These social classes were strict, meaning that for example "Untouchables" were the lowest of the low, and also dictated what jobs you could work.

Confucianism and the Eternal nation:

Confucianism, while not a religion per se, was the driving philosophy for China for its entire dynastic history. Confucius himself, he was a guy that merely said to only re-echo the words of older Chinese philosophers, his works are the ones that survived, and are the most influential today. Also, with Confucianism comes social expectations of a meritocracy, which spurred on the Chinese belief of education leads to success, leading to people like the Eunuchs, and how China always had scholars through processes like the government exams, based on Confucian techniques. Another thing to note is how Confucianism got its social order through something similar to the caste system, but through people's relationships, ie. father and son, friend and friend, educated vs. uneducated.

References:

Mason, C. (2014). A short history of Asia (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.

# data[].attributes.headline
Second Takeaway in M2: The European fascination with Asia because of Marco Polo's travels

# data[].attributes.subject
Second Takeaway in M2: The European fascination with Asia because of Marco Polo's travels

# data[].attributes.body
In Module #2, one of the key takeaways that I learned from this module was how one of the major catalysts for the European fascination with Asia, and to some extent the Age of Discovery, stemmed from accounts of travelers such as Marco Polo, whose accounts give Europe dreams about the grandeur and exoticism of the East.

In the required readings, the author has discussed how "'Marco Polo’s view of the Great Khan and his empire is always favourable and often sycophantic', and how 'He often exaggerates, his sense of geography is vague, and most deceptive of all, he attributes to Kublai a huge and sophisticated civilization which was really the creation of the previous Chinese government'" (Mason, 72). What Mason means to portray, is that since Marco Polo's accounts of the orient were not just detailed, but also favorable (speaking quite highly of the Khan), it adds to the perceived grandeur of his accounts, which alludes a European audience into believing the places in Asia, especially China, to be larger-than-life and very grand, which correlates with Professor Chu's Module Objective #2. In this, I think that Marco Polo's account, while I would argue wouldn't be the only reason for Europe's obsession with Asia, it is definitely one of the main stepping stones where the European view of the lands where silk, tea, spices, and exotic goods flourish stems from, in starting to form that stereotype.

My understanding of each module #2 objective:

The Opening of the East: Marco Polo, Pioneer of East-West Communication and Culture:

Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, who travelled all throughout Asia under the protection of the Mongols, was able to document his travels and it was published throughout Europe. His account of the East was so captivating to the European mindset, with imaginations of exotic goods, which helped the West to use Eastern inventions such as the compass and gunpowder, brought over from routes such as the Silk Road, to pioneer an Age of Discovery, and thus, eventual colonization of the other places around the world, including parts of Asia.

Defending of the East: The Great Wall Legacy:

The Great Wall in China, built, lengthened, and re-built over many dynasties, while granted it was not able to always repel northern invaders (such as the Mongols --> Yuan Dynasty), it was a great undertaking of human labor and resources that only attributes to the great power that the Chinese state so often wielded.

Crumbling the East: Opium Wars

Because Opium was an addictive drug that the Chinese people consumed a lot, the British decided to produce opium in India and sell it to China. The Chinese got mad because of this, because they believed that the fair trade was corrupting the Chinese society. The British in response to trade embargoes started the Opium Wars, to force China to open trade, which also revealed China's power in the 1800's to not be as strong as once previously thought.

What is the "Century of Humiliation"?:

After the Opium Wars, European powers caught on that China's strength was very old, leading to the European portrayal of China as a weak man, ready for spheres of influence to be brought upon by European powers, the Japanese, and eventually the Americans as well getting a piece of the pie. Until the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, this Century from the signing of the treaty at the end of the First Opium War marked the time period as such, characterized with the colonizing powers usually getting their way.

References:

Mason, C. (2014). A short history of Asia (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.

# data[].attributes.headline
My Thoughts on the Movie: The Road to Freedom: Gandhi

# data[].attributes.subject
My Thoughts on the Movie: The Road to Freedom: Gandhi

# data[].attributes.body
The movie we watched in this unit was "The Road to Freedom: Gandhi". While the movie showed the mainstream view of Gandhi, who is seen as the bald guy who did marches and fasting and eventually helped liberate India, it also showed the other, more controversial sides of Gandhi. I am fascinated how in particular, the perspective of the Muslim side was shown (especially by Ali Jinnah & the Muslim League), who saw Gandhi's ideals of a Hindu and Muslim unified country would not work in their eyes, mainly because of the fear that Hindu-dominated politics would drown out the largest (Muslim) minority. This is referenced by one of the quotes that is said in Mason's book, "...driven forward by Jinnah, its leader, who insisted on a separate Muslim nation. ‘We will have either a divided India or a destroyed India’, he said" (Mason, 169-170). This shows how one of the main themes of how Gandhi wasn't perfect can be characterized by how Gandhi's ideas, for example this one being the unified India through religion, wasn't agreed upon by all Indians at the time.

References:

Mason, C. (2014). A short history of Asia (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.

The road to freedom: Gandhi. (2009). In Films On Demand. Films Media Group. https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=151103&xtid=55147

# data[].attributes.headline
Third Takeaway in M3: The Partition of India's Struggles with the Two Main Religions, Islam & Hinduism

# data[].attributes.subject
Third Takeaway in M3: The Partition of India's Struggles with the Two Main Religions, Islam & Hinduism

# data[].attributes.body
In Module #3, one of the key takeaways that I learned from this module was how the freedom and development of the separate states of Pakistan and India (after the British left), had been scarred by religious strife due to the rise of separate factions in the build up to independence, characterized by Hindu nationalism and Islamic exclusion.

In the required readings, the author has discussed how "'The second wave of nationalism was based on a political and social revival of Hinduism itself, as revealed in the ancient epics.' and 'They [being Hindu religious organizations] influenced many Indians to oppose social reforms introduced by Britain on the grounds that it was best for Indians first to achieve political influence and reform their society afterwards. Hence a revivalist Hinduism became a central theme of nationalism'" (Mason, 150). What Mason intends, is how in the wave of post-WWII nationalism in India that developed, the majority Hindu-oriented politics, sought that in their moment of glory when independence was over the horizon, wanted policies to exclude Islam, and cement Hindu-centric policies, which correlates with Professor Chu's Module Objective #3. What I think is that despite the protests of people like Gandhi (who wanted both religions to co-exist in India), people like Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League who feared that the new India would not give proper recognition to Muslims, was the reason the breakup of Pakistan and India became so violent.

My understanding of each module #3 objective:

Overview the imperialism and colonialism in Asia:

The causes of imperialism were nationalism/social Darwinism, military motives, economic motives, and the "White Man's Burden", which meant that it was the white people (Europeans) who felt morally obligated to make the lesser peoples in the world to be civilized like them. The first to arrive in Asia were the Portuguese in Goa (that's part of India), and then other European powers followed suit, with Spain taking the Philippines, the British taking India, the French taking Indochina, and the Dutch taking Indonesia.

Who were the Dominators? Who were the Dominated?:

The dominators were the word given for the Western powers who sought to exploit Asia for their own benefit. The Dominated were the actual Asian states whose natural resources and people were being used up for economic purposes. For some countries, they weren't conquered, such as Thailand, and China. However, for China, while it couldn't be conquered outright, it had spheres of influence set up inside it.

India under two masters:

The two "masters" of India were the Mughals (who controlled most of India before the British), and then it was the East India Company, which was a British company. The Mughals, which could trace their ancestors back to the Mongols, were interested in blending Islam and Hinduism. The East India Company however, was more interested in economic exploitation of India. When the Sepoy rebellion happened though, because of the gun oil used was pig oil (which offended the Muslims and Hindus), the British crown decided that the East India Company was no more, and it was turned into a crown colony, under direct British control.

How did British rule India:

The British gave a lot of good and also a lot of bad things to India. First up, the British gave a language that could be used as a middle language to connect all the different-speaking tongues in India, English. Another good thing was the education system brought up by British schooling to make Indians smarter. Bad things that were also brought by the British, however, were things like the economic exploitation of its resources, like textiles. Some things are also both good and bad, like how railroads, while are useful for India now, have previously been used to transport troops for control and for economic purposes which helped only the British.

Gandhi’s India: The struggle for liberty:

People like Gandhi strived for an independent Indian state. However, the actual details, mainly religious, set the stage for a messy breakup, and in turn, the start of separate countries, such as Pakistan. This was because the main Indian independence movement focused on Hinduism being the main religion, with that also being its main focus in politics. This made Muslims feel left out, so they sought to create their own state, which led to a bloody war after independence in 1947.

Controversies about Gandhi:

Gandhi was not a perfect man, as he preferred the Indian caste system, and how he supported religious pluralism with his acceptance with Hinduism and Islam. Another thing that not all Indians liked at the time was his methods of nonviolence.

References:

Mason, C. (2014). A short history of Asia (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.

# data[].attributes.headline
A potential discussion question: What could've happened if China never turned its back on the sea to focus on itself and the Great Wall?

# data[].attributes.subject
A potential discussion question: What could've happened if China never turned its back on the sea to focus on itself and the Great Wall?

# data[].attributes.body
My response to this question would be, that I think that China could've had the possibility of being a colonial power itself, meaning it would be one of the dominators rather than the dominated. I think that because China used to have a very strong fleet through people like Zheng He, if China never turned its back on the sea, even navies such as England's could have had a harder time fighting China, and may not have led to their victory in the Opium Wars. As said by Mason, "Chinese ships ranged throughout Asia — indeed as far afield as East Africa — and by the end of the first quarter of the 15th century had brought home token fealty and tribute from scores of Asian principalities. According to Chinese records a live giraffe from Africa was brought to Beijing, and presented to the emperor" (Mason, 79-80). This leads me to believe that China's potential naval reach was so far from being realized to its true potential, only if China just never turned its back on the sea. What we could have seen, at least I think, would be China acting like how Japan did in our history, perhaps China in this alternate timeline, due to focusing on its navy, be deep in Australia, Indonesia, the South Pacific, and maybe having outposts in India as well.

# data[].attributes.headline
Current News: Pakistan's Prime Minister Likens the Gaza Conflict to the Kashmir Conflict between India and Pakistan

# data[].attributes.subject
Current News: Pakistan's Prime Minister Likens the Gaza Conflict to the Kashmir Conflict between India and Pakistan

# data[].attributes.body
In summary, this article is about how Pakistan's Prime Minister, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, made a connection between the ongoing Gaza conflict, and the long-standing Jammu-Kashmir conflict, between Pakistan and India. Sharif alluded to how Gaza's conflict, which he calls a tragedy, is like Kashmir's situation, where he believes that Indian troops have been terrorizing the local residents.

I picked this article, because it was very recent (a few days ago), and also because the article, through the Pakistan PM's comments, connects a conflict that I've been following for a while, which is the Gaza conflict, with what we've learned in APP 101, with the break-up of India.

The author's purpose of writing the article was to inform the reader of Sharif's point of view, and how Sharif believes that the Gaza conflict, like the Kashmir conflict needs to both come to an immediate end.

Some comments that I would make on this article would be that as he says that furthering the Gaza conflict would make the entire region fall into a deeper war, I think that in the lens of APP 101, this can also relate to how the break up of India spiraled into a very deadly conflict that left thousands dead.

Citation:

UN Photo/Loey Felipe. (2024, September 27). ‘Chill of a new Cold War’ is in the air, Pakistan leader tells UN Assembly. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1155061

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He expressed "searing pain and anguish" over the plight of the people in Gaza, stating, "our hearts bleed as we witness the tragedy unfolding in the Holy Land, a tragedy that shakes the very conscience of humanity."

"Can we, as human beings, remain silent while children lie buried under the rubble of their shattered homes?ِ Can we turn a blind eye to the mothers, cradling the lifeless bodies of their children?ِ" he asked, stressing that this is not just a conflict but a "systematic slaughter of innocent people".

He emphasised that it is not enough to condemn the conflict, but rather there must be immediate action towards a two-State solution based on pre-1967 borders and full membership at the UN for Palestine.

Without such a solution, "[the current conflict] threatens to drag the entire Middle East into a war, whose consequences could be grave and beyond imagination".

The Prime Minister of Pakistan likens the plight of the people of Palestine to those in Jammu and Kashmir where they have "struggled for a century for their freedom and right to self-determination".

He underscored that since 5 August 2019, India has initiated "unilateral illegal steps to impose what its leaders ominously call a 'Final Solution' for Jammu and Kashmir" with 900,000 Indian troops terrorising the people there through prolonged curfews, extra-judicial killings and the abduction of thousands of young Kahmiris.

In reaction to "massive expansion of its military capabilities which are essentially deployed against Pakistan", he asserted that "Pakistan will respond most decisively to any Indian aggression."

Turning to the increasing impacts of climate change, the Prime Minister said that while his country emits less than one per cent of carbon globally, it had to pay a very heavy price, including the $30 billion in damages from catastrophic floods two years ago.

"We must uphold the axiom: the polluter pays!" he declared.

Additionally, nearly 100 developing countries are "trapped in a vicious cycle of debt and liquidity crisis", he said, naming it a "death trap" and recalling the Secretary-General's description of the international financial architecture as "morally bankrupt".

"The world trade and technology regimes must be reformed and aligned to promote development and global equity," he said.

"We must carry with us a message for our people that the weak are not voiceless, that the oppressed should not lose hope, that poverty is not preordained and that the Almighty's promise of justice and equality in our only terrestrial home must be respected!" he concluded.

Click here for full statement in English.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Chill of a new Cold War' is in the air, Pakistan leader tells UN Assembly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pakistan's Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif told the UN General Assembly on Friday that with the world gripped by daunting challenges, from conflict to terrorism and climate change, "we feel the chill of a new Cold War." |