Newsletter #2: Colonial influence, and Empires in Asia by Andrew Padillo

First takeaway in M5: The concept of "Orientalism" coined by Edward Said + "Anna and the King" versions clips analysis

apadillo2_2 — 2024-11-04 03:09:42 UTC

In module #5, one of the key takeaways that I learned from this module was that the concept of Orientalism (by Edward Said), is an idea from the "Western" point-of-view, by looking at the "East" (meaning Asia), stereotyping them, and using it as more of a difference to display the "us versus them" mentality, where Asia is portrayed to seem different and strange.

In the required readings (Mason, Said) and viewings (Anna and the King clips), Said's book on Orientalism has discussed how the Orientalist view arose out of the Western romanticization of Asian cultures (Said). What he means to say, is that the schema of orientalism that westerners usually think of, is this very larger-than-life, exotic, very different from what they're used to part of the world. In this, I think that with Said, his view on Orientalism paints a critical picture of how we imagine some parts of Asian culture, and only think of the stereotypes, rather than the actual traditions themselves.

My understanding of each Module #5 objective + movie:

Overview of Thailand:

In 1939, Thailand changed its name from Siam to Thailand. A notable exception to Asian colonization, Thailand was able to not be colonized by either the French or British, and it was seen as a buffer between the two powers. Thailand also took considerable influence from the French and British during this time, alluding to today's modern understanding of Thailand more as a "vacation" place.

What is Orientalism? Who is the Orient? Where is the Oriental? Why does Orientalism matter?:

Orientalism, coined and described by Edward Said, is basically the idea where anything that is supposed to be Asian, is supposed to look very "different" (from a European or western perspective), and make the "Oriental" thing look either strange, or backwards, or weak.

The Origins and politics of Orientalism:

Orientalism is coined, and described by Edward Said (explained above). Also, Orientalism is part of the idea of European dominance, and the white man's burden, where oriental, or rather, unfamiliar things in the western point-of-view play into the western view of "non-civility" from Asian peoples.

Case Study: Hangover Part II(2011):

In Hangover Part II, orientalism can be seen in the trailer. For example, there is a monkey, which can signal orientalism, because to western audiences a monkey seems "different" as a pet, as opposed to something like a dog, or a cat. Another thing, is that the scenery used at the beginning of the trailer shows islands and clean, sparkling water, that makes the place reminiscent of a "paradise", which also plays into the orientalism idea, of Bangkok as a "vacation place". One last part, is on the focus of the design of the buildings and architecture, where the movie shows the narrow streets, tuk-tuks and small vehicles, and lots of big towers but also the dirt on the sides of the walls too, which make it seem "different" to western audiences.

Case Study:Anna and the King of Siam:

In the three versions of the film of Anna and the King, orientalism can be seen as there is an evolution in the portrayal of the Thai people. For the first version, the music is very eerie, and the King himself isn't actually portrayed by a Thai, but just a white man in makeup to look brown. The conversation makes Anna look like the civilized one, and the King as more of a barbarian. For the musical (second) version, the King does not go down to the docks just to meet Anna. Furthermore, Anna and the boy sing about not being afraid in Siam. For the final version, the King is portrayed with an actual Thai person, and Anna is the one who is lower to the King, as she must go all the way to the palace first. Also, as Anna goes through Bangkok, the docks and the streets show a lot of people trading things like food, meaning to showcase prosperity.

References:

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

Movies clips of "Anna and the King of Siam" (From Professor Chu)

Said, Edward, Orientalism. New York: Pantheon, 1978. p. 1-110.

Second takeaway in M6: Colonial domination butts heads against Asian resistance + "First They Killed My Father" analysis

apadillo2_2 — 2024-11-04 03:19:00 UTC

In module #6, one of the key takeaways that I learned from this module was that one of the great pull factors that led to communism being adopted and used heavily in the former French Indochina states, was the communist promise of ending the traditional hierarchy, removing the exploitation of the peasantry, and land ownership being held by only a few people.

In the required readings (Mason) and viewings (First They Killed My Father, Quackenbush, Reuters), Mason has discussed how in the period of "class struggle" under Pol Pot's Cambodia, it resulted in the Cambodian Genocide, killing 2 million Cambodians (Mason, 317). What he is trying to convey, by pointing out this fact is how the idea of class struggle, in the Khmer Rouge's eyes, was to eliminate all sense of subscription to any western culture or ideas, and eliminate the system of capitalism. In this, I think that the Khmer Rouge's extreme ideals, including killing people that 'wore glasses' (Mason, 317) were important factors that contributed to the brutality of the Cambodian Genocide.

My understanding of each Module #6 objective + movie:

Where and what is Cambodia?:

Cambodia used to be the Khmer Empire in the 9th to 15th centuries, and used to be very powerful. At the middle of Cambodia is Angkor, which has lots of temples, including the famous Angkor Wat, built over 30 years, 300,000 workers, and all out of stone. Angkor Wat while also a temple, might have also been a mausoleum for a king after his death. Angkor Wat is now a symbol of Cambodia.

Land of the killing fields:

From 1975 to 1979, Cambodia, under the Khmer Rouge, had a genocide, killing two million Cambodians. But before all of this, Cambodia was under French colonization, but after they became independent, they had a King, Sihanouk who was a dictator. After there was a revolution against Sihanouk, being replaced by general Lon Nol, in 1975 the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia.

Who were the Khmer Rouge?:

The Khmer Rouge were the communist regime of Cambodia after taking over the Lon Nol government, in 1975. The Khmer Rouge wanted to follow in China's footsteps, and wipe out capitalism and westernization completely. The Khmer Rouge were ideologically very extreme too, moving out everyone in cities, and forced everyone to farm. Also, they wanted to remove all Buddhist monks, kill all of the Lon Nol affiliated people, and expel all ethnic Vietnamese.

Post-1979: The Aftermath:

After the genocide, while the Khmer Rouge in theory is no longer present, former Khmer Rouge affiliates are still in power in Cambodia today. Furthermore, Cambodia is still a communist country, and does not have full free and open democracy.

First They Killed My Father:

In the movie, "First They Killed My Father", a takeaway could be how the process of brainwashing and social change was seen as the movie progresses. At first, when the people were moving out of the city, including the Ungs, they all still had a lot of possessions on them, some with cars like the Ungs too. However, then they lost all of their possessions, and money too, and then at last they all had to wear the same clothes and scarf, and then have all of the same wooden houses they had to build by themselves, which was interesting to see because of the principles of the Khmer Rouge, from communism.

References:

Film: First They Killed My Father (2017).

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

Video: PM of Cambodia Hun Sen to hand power to his son. Reuters, July 27, 2023.

Quackenbush, Casey. "40 Years after the Fall of the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia Still Grapples with Pol Pot's Brutal Legacy." Time. 1/9/2019

Third takeaway in M7: A tale of two empires, one Asian (Japan), one foreign (US)

apadillo2_2 — 2024-11-04 03:32:13 UTC

In Module #7, one of the key takeaways that I learned from this module was that because the United States, in search of "manifest destiny", and after its victory against the Spanish in the Spanish-American War, was that the occupation of the Philippines in Asia was an important step into America's empire building.

In the required readings (Mason) and viewings (Crash Course, PBS), Mason has discussed how the American occupation of the Philippines was not universally supported. He backs up this claim by citing how some in the United States saw the situation in the Philippines as "was now becoming imperial master of another people was widely opposed in America" (Mason, 289). What he means, is that the issue of the Philippines, and whether to annex it as American territory, or leave the Filipinos alone was not a clear decision to make at first, for the American government. In this, I think that the United States' keeping of the Philippines reflected the US' goals in Asia, by taking the Philippines, and specifically Manila's harbor, the US would start to set itself up with a closer distance to trade with China and Japan, and start building its empire.

My understanding of each Module #5 objective:

Overview of the Philippines:

The Philippines is an archipelago in Southeast Asia. A lot of its people can speak English because of the history of colonization, where not only the United States, but also Spain had colonized the Philippines for 400 years, until the United States took the Philippines in the Spanish-American War. But because of the Spanish, most Filipinos are practicing Catholics today.

The Background of American Imperialism:

The background of American imperialism relies on the idea of "manifest destiny", and also the "White Man's Burden". Note that "manifest destiny" was hotly debated though, as not all Americans wanted to expand outwards from America itself. Some believed that America did not need to expand its territory outwards to keep gaining power and influence. However, at first America didn't want to colonize, because of the Monroe doctrine, which said that America would stay isolationist, away from affairs not on the American continent. This changed after the Spanish-American War, when the United States got Puerto Rico, some Pacific islands, and the Philippines too. This meant that after the Spanish-American War, it could be argued that the United States was now a colonizer, as well as an empire just like the rest of the major European powers.

The matter of the Philippines (1898 - 1946):

America was unsure about what to do with the Philippines at first. Billionaires like Andrew Carnegie, suggested that he himself purchase the freedom of the Philippines. The Filipinos revolted, led by Aguinaldo, but the revolution failed, placing the Philippines under an insular government. While some in America wanted to give the Philippines independence, citing things like moral reasons, other people in government, and the side that won the debate, was that the Philippines was too economically and strategically important, especially with the harbor in Manila, to just throw it all away.

The growth of US/Japanese Hostility (1915 - 1932):

Japan subscribed to the idea of nationalism, like Italy and Germany did, in the prelude to WWII. But before this, Japan was an isolationist nation, much like the United States at first too. However, after Japan realized that it needed to modernize, the Meiji reforms were made to restructure Japanese society, and this led to Japan's military being regionally stronger to others. This rapid modernization combined with the building up of the Japanese military meant that Japan was able to beat the Russian Empire, which was a remarkable achievement, and took Korea, Taiwan, and Qingdao. This growth by Japan made the United States take notice, as both sides would eventually go to war in WWII, leading to Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bombs.

Rise to the world power (1890 - 1945):

If the United States wanted to be a great power, it would need sea power, as alluded to by Mahanian theory. One of the biggest parts of this was not just the Philippines and Manila's harbor, but also Honolulu. Because the Pacific is the largest ocean, and Hawaii is in the middle, and America controlled it, this meant that the American navy had the best base for sea power. Also, with other types of power, the rise of America through new technologies such as the atomic bomb gave the US more influence and a greater say in affairs concerning Asia.

References:

Adam, Elizabeth. “PR Spanish American War PBS.” YouTube, YouTube, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPJd3RJI4oY.

Green, John, director. American Imperialism: Crash Course US History #28. YouTube, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfsfoFqsFk4. Accessed 2024.

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

A potential discussion question: Why were the countries of former French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) more open to communism?

apadillo2_2 — 2024-11-04 03:46:42 UTC

My response to this question would be twofold: both geography, with a consideration for the living conditions under the French colonial rule. Firstly, I would say that because China had just became communist at the time just before the uprisings against the French were successful, and through the geographic localization (French Indochina is just south of China), I believe that the localization would make communist ideas seem more accessible. Another reason why I believe that the areas of French Indochina rose up using communist ideals as its core, is because of the conditions that many of the colonized people were facing -- the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Lao, the Hmong, all were forced to work by the French (who were the ones in charge at the time). Because of this forced agricultural labor, this meant that the majority of French Indochinese were relatively poor, and I would argue that communism would have seen more appealing for a revolution against France, because the "promise" with communism is that everyone is supposed to be equal, which the lower classes in French Indochina, especially the people on plantation work, would seem as a good idea to them.

Current News: Centuries-old Khmer Sandstone Statues Found, helping in Restoration of Cambodian Cultural Treasures

apadillo2_2 — 2024-11-04 03:53:26 UTC

In summary, this article is about how archaeologists working in Cambodia have found some statues, from the ancient Khmer period, a description of the statues' characteristics such as the facial features and stuff, and how the statues are about to be sent away for restoration.

I picked this article, because it was quite recent (only a few days ago published), and also because the author made an interesting connection of how the repatriation and restoration of artifacts such as the statues are important to reclaiming Cambodian, and Khmer culture.

The author's purpose of writing the article is mainly to inform the audience of the discovery by the archaeologists mainly, the article has very little if at all a political agenda.

Some comments that I would make on this article would be that the article referencing how the Khmer Rouge period was destroying the ancient Khmer cultural artifacts and other parts of Cambodian culture sync in well with Module 6, and the idea of how in the movie First They Killed My Father, the symbolism throughout the movie of the Khmer Rouge "scrubbing away" all of the old culture, with the intent to replace it with communism.

Citation:

Cheang, S. (2024, October 30). Cambodian archaeologists discover a dozen centuries-old sandstone statues at Angkor UNESCO site. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/cambodia-angkor-archaeology-artifacts-unesco-a4a679c624fa8f73d12d65a13bb8be92