ToK Questions

1. Why study history?

It is important to study history because the only way to learn from past mistakes is to recognize the signs of similar occurences. Studying history does not guarantee that we will not make the same mistakes, but it can help in avoiding future ones and also helps the understanding of present situations. A good example of this is studying the mandate system put in place in the middle east under the treaty of versailles in 1919 which is a long term cause of the current problems between the US and the area. Arab countries distrust Western ones because of the mandate system, which among other things misplaced nomadic tribes and caused fighting between them, and because of that distrust it is easy for extremist groups to demonize western countries -- if not for the study of history, the cause of this resentment might not be known and therefore could not be properly resolved (not that it has been, but we can still hope). And by knowing why this happened, mandates can be avoided in the future.

2. Is knowledge of the past ever certain?

Knowledge of the past is never certain because there is no way to be sure of our ways of knowing. For example, governments, such as the fascist government of Stalin or Lenin over the USSR, can literally rewrite history and change facts in a way that benefits their regime. Lenin literally wrote Trotsky out of the history books, and so although Trotsky played a key role in the rise of communism in the USSR, he didn't exist to most of the country. The ways of knowing that the common people had were authority, which in this case was corrupt, and memory -- but at a certain point, those who remember what happened will die and memory will not justify the existence of Trotsky anymore. Furthermore, there is no way to record all that has ever happened or has impacted "history"; a lot of what we call "knowledge" of the past is interpretation, because there are different theories that exist. There is no concrete "truth", so our knowledge that is founded upon these truths is not certain either.

3. Does the study of history widen our knowledge of human nature?

The study of history widens our knowledge of human nature because there are patterns evident in human nature that manifest themselves in the choices we make that then create history. Many of the things we have studied in history present what appears to be a common need for scapegoats, for example. In the Treaty of Versailles, the War Guilt clause that Germany was forced to accept illustrates the need for a scapegoat, as does the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. By looking at these examples which, though different, both demonstrate a seemingly common human failing, we can examine our current actions: is the war in the Middle East an attempt to use all Arabs as scapegoats for the 9/11 attacks? Does this pattern also manifest itself in other historical events? Our repeated actions reveal our ingrained tendencies, such as the desire not to take responsibility for mistakes made, and hopefully we can learn from them.

4. Can history help in understanding the present or predicting the future?

History can certainly help in understanding the present, because the conditions created in the past have given rise to the future. Again I will use the example of the Middle East and the mandate system: many Americans who aren't aware of the devastation of the mandate system on Middle Eastern tribes are quick to chalk the 9/11 attacks up to "jealousy of the American life" (i.e., we are better than them so they got mad and bombed us), and this simply is not an understanding of the situation. A much more honest and realistic answer would be that, by approving a corrupt mandate system, Western countries completely altered the lives of Arabs in a way that resulted in territory-wars and loss of identity (nomadic tribes were confined to certain boundaries, which obviously had an impact on those tribes); this led to resentment and then with the Gulf Wars to the rise of extremist groups such as the Taliban which were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. With the knowledge of the mandate system and the Gulf Wars, it is easy to see how our past has created our future. Predicting the future is harder -- it may be possible to create vague outlines of what may happen, for example using the rise and fall of the Roman Empire as a model for what will happen to America, to assume that there will be a general "peak and decline" pattern. However, the world is constantly changing with innovations such as new technology; we may be able to say that resentment bred in treaties such as Versailles will lead to war based on similar events in the past, but it wouldn't have been possible for a historian to predict the role that nuclear weapons would play in the end of world war II based on any past wars.

5. To what extent does emotion play a role in an historian’s analysis? Is (historical) objectivity possible?

I think that emotion plays a role in a historian's analysis to a great extent. First of all, every historian has opinions regarding the world outside of history, and is more likely to pick out their facts to create theories based on their personal beliefs. For example, Marxist historians favor the theory that economic competition and the naval and arms race between Britain and Germany were major causes of World War I, because these theories point out capitalism as the culprit. Confirmation bias is almost inevitable, because a historian has to pick what facts they factor into their assessments of the past -- they aren't likely to pick facts that support a theory they themselves oppose. This is not objective, and allows emotion to impact how they view historical facts. Furthermore, even if a historian is being objective, where they are from geographically and the "emotion" associated with historical events in that area paints what facts they get. An American historian during the Cold War would be unlikely to get the facts regarding the Rape of Nanking because knowledge of that incident was suppressed -- America was in a war on communism, and the government didn't want communist China viewed in a sympathetic light. As a result, a historian trying to be objective may be simply unable to get the facts because of how the people surrounding them feel. The closest thing I can think of to "objective" history is Positivism, which claims that history is only history if it is in the form of pure historical fact, without analysis and including ALL facts. This may be objective, but it simply cannot work because it is not possible for every single historical happening to be recorded -- it is inevitable that certain facts will be known, and what is known obviously impacts what we view as historical truth, whether or not it really is the truth.

6. Why do accounts of the same historical event differ? Whose history do we study?

Accounts of the same historical events differ for several reasons. One reason is that not every historian has access to the same facts; on two different sides of one war, different events will be more important to one side than to the other. Again, as with the Rape of Nanking, some information is simply not available because very few governments want to tell a truth that portrays them in a negative light. Furthermore, the winning side of a war has the power to dictate what is the historical truth. It is said that the victors are the ones who write history, and it's true: very few historians will support historical theories that portray them in a negative light, so the facts that are passed down are altered or completely omitted. In fascist regimes such as Communist China, the brutalities of the Guomingdang Government were used as justification for takeover, but the brutalities committed by Mao's armies didn't exist in the history books because it painted the Communists in a bad light; dissenters were sent to the country and "re-educated" after Mao's Hundred Flowers speech because, being the victor, Mao could decide what history and truth were.

7. What determines how historians select evidence and describe/interpret or analyse events?

There are many factors that determine how historians select evidence and analyze it. Geographical position can play a role, because a historian born and raised in, say the USSR, is likely to support Communism and therefore would be more likely to choose evidence and analyze that in a way that makes it seem as if Communism is superior to Capitalism. Geography can also impact what facts are made available to historians to analyze, particularly in single-party states. Similarly, personal convictions/emotions impact what evidence a historian will select and analyze; obviously, a Marxist historian would be more likely to pay attention to the importance of the economic race in the start of World War I and downplay the importance of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (for example) because each historian is trying to prove a point: they have a theory as to why something happened which is born of their own personal convictions, and will try to prove their theory as right.

8. What problems are posed for the study of history by changes in language and culture over time?

Changes in language make the study of history much harder to convey. Some issues, such as "untranslatable words" pose a threat to the understanding of concepts between languages; it may be possible to convey a point in Dutch with one word, but impossible to convey that same meaning in English because there is no English equivalent. Over time, as language changes concepts can be lost. Furthermore, when languages die, there is no way to translate them and so any history recorded in them will be lost until those languages can be translated again (an example of this would be the role of the Rosetta Stone in the understanding of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphic languages, which were untranslatable prior to its disovery). Culture changes cause problems for the study of history because the concept of what history changes with culture. In ancient Rome, often stories that were interspersed with mythology were taken as historical facts. In current American culture, although there is a faction of people who take the Bible as historical fact, religious mythology and 'stories' are not accepted as historical fact. So although "The Aeneid" may have been historical to the Greeks, in American culture it ceases to be history at all. This raises questions of whether our older histories can be relied upon as factual, and whether our current way of recording history will be historical a couple of thousand years into the future.

9. Can history be considered in any sense “scientific”?

History is in some senses scientific. There are many similarities between the historical and scientific processes: the historian, like the scientist, formulates a question such as "What were the main causes of World War I?", has a hypothesis, and conducts research that allows them to come to a conclusion. The main difference is that in science the evidence must be found through experiment, whereas in history the evidence already exists. History shares some flaws with science, such as the trouble of confirmation bias and the selection of evidence specifically to support a theory as well.

acronym!

Aims of Japan included control of German parts in China

Italy demanded control of the Fiume Territory and Port City.

Main British objective was to secure territory in the middle east, leading to the mandate system's establishment.

Some of Wilson's goals included the reduction of armaments and freedom of the seas.

One of the goals of the three main powers, France, Britain and the United States, was to cripple germany to keep it from growing too powerful and instigating another war: "stripped of her wealth and all her armed forces"

Feeling entitled to former German possessions because it had captured them, Japan demanded these as payment for their contribution to the war.

Victors of the war all had varying degrees of punishment in their goals: America was lenient, Britain moderate, France demanding compensation for the suffering and loss France had endured over the war.

It was one of Britain's goals in being more lenient with Germany that the country would not have bitterness towards the allies and potentially might serve as a barrier against Bolshevism.

Clemanceau's main goal in the Treaty of Versailles was to make Germany suffer for what it had done to France.

The 14 Points Speech was a basis for Wilson's goals for the Treaty, promoting a number of protocols that would keep another World War from breaking out.

Oil in the middle east!

Reparations were demanded to be paid by Germany, but Britain wanted to take only enough so that Germany would be able to consistently pay without occupation of their armies to ensure collection.

Systems for keeping peace such as the League of Nations were established-- an aim of Wilson's designed to ensure that nations would rule themselves as "open, democratic societies".

Quiz

3. Weakness of the Manchu Dynasty: The weakness of the Manchu Dynasty was a huge contributing factor to the beginning of the Civil War. China had been ruled by dynasties throughout its history, and (as with other imperialist regimes such as Russia and Germany's) the emperors of China towards the end of the 19th century. The Manchu Dynasty was already unpopular for allowing interference with other countries, such as the United States with the Open Door Policies, to impact life in China. After the Emperor, who wanted to give peasants more right for land, was overthrown by his aunt Empress Chianxi who nixed any hope of reform. This tension culminated in the Boxer Rebellion of 1901, in which martial arts warriors fought against European/Westerners and all Christians inhabiting China. Although the rebellion was muted with the help of other countries, the rebellion made a lasting impression upon the minds of the people. This was furthered when Chianxi was replaced by a 3 year old "emperor" upon her death.

People

Sun Yat-sen - Sun Yat-sen was a doctor and revolutionary who played an instrumental role in overthrowing the Manchu dynasty. He had been exiled for staging several failed coups, and in fact he was not directly involved in the October 10, 1911 Wuchang Rebellion that ousted the Manchus from power; upon hearing of the revolution he returned to China from the United States and was elected President of the Republic of China. Yat-sen was important because he was able to keep a large group of people with differing ideas for the republic united in its early years after the Manchu dynasty was overthrown.

HW 5

Identify at least one economic, social, political and foreign policy effect of Chinese Civil War. Refer to China Chapters 12 and 13 and The Lowe Text pages 415-419

Social:

Women's rights were prominent on the Communist agenda in the early years of its rule. In April 1950, the Marriage Law was introduced. This put a stop to arranged marriages, the marriage of children, murder of unwanted girl babies, and bigamy. Women were given more power, such as joint control over property with their husbands (rather than their husbands just having complete control), and divorce laws were updated (mutual consent in divorce was introduced). Another law in February of 1951 also introduced maternity leave and benefit, giving women two months wages after the birth of a child. There were 270 million women in China at the time, and before the Communist rule had virtually no rights and were subject to traditions such as footbinding that were ultimately harmful. This was the first step towards social equality between men and women.

Economic:

At the time of the Communist victory, China was very far behind most other countries economically. In addition, there was not enough food and a rapidly growing population; all things that led to economic strife. To combat this, the communists made major banks, the railway network, and a third of heavy industry into state property, the profits of which went straight to the State Treasury; this accounted for 2/3 of its yearly income. A People's Bank was opened in 1951 to replace private banks, and it had control of the issuing of money and over all transactions. This led to inflation being eradicated by the mid 1950s. Evidence of a single-party state's emergence was the treatment of food shortages: farmers had to sell 15 - 20% of their grain to the government at a fixed, low rate, and had to pay an agricultural tax.

Political:

Free speech was a casualty of Mao's single-party state. Due to the strain of the Five Year Plan, Mao's government became quite unpopular with the people. To combat this, Mao declared in his "Hundred Flowers" speech that his government was for the people and therefore it would be taking the complaints of the people and improving where they saw dissent. However, this ended in June 1957 when Mao swiftly took action against his critics. Some were fired from their jobs, others were sent to the country for "thought reform"; press was censored and free speech was banned. This is a sign of a dictatorship emerging.

Foreign Policy:

The PRC and the USSR entered a political relationship in 1949 after Mao came to power. Mao asked Stalin for financial help and, traveling to Moscow to talk to Staling, came to the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance. This gave China both financial aid and "technical advice". Ultimately it was much more helpful to industry because it provided 10,000 engineers and planning experts who "planned China's economy"; the amount of money given was only $300 million over the course of 5 years, mostly in credits rather than cash. This relationship developed further under the influence of the Russian advisors with plans such as the First Five-Year Plan (1953-57).

HW 7

1. Identify and explain four of Mao's main aims as ruler of China (from notes also).

- Increase industrial output.

- Gain support from the USSR

- Rebuild China and build support from peasants and communes

- Get and maintain power

2. Identify and explain four major methods he used to try to achieve those aims. (think specific domestic policies)

- The Great Leap Forward: Mao's plan to make China into one of the world's leading industrial nations while improving agriculture. He hoped to overtake the English economy within 15 years and America's in 20 to 30 years. From 1958-1963.

-Communes: Mao reorganized the people into communes, which on average contained 5000 families who would give up land, animals and equipment to common ownership with everyone in the commune. Mao thought this would release the "tremendous energy of the masses" by increasing efficiency with things like communal eating halls (less time spent cooking by various people), and "houses of happiness" for the sick and infirm so that they wouldn't be a burden on their families.

-Propaganda: Posters, slogans and newspaper articles were used to make the chinese people enthusiastic about working long hours no matter the weather or bad conditions. Loudspeakers would play "revolutionary songs and stirring speeches" that encouraged the people to meet and exceed the goals for each target in the 5 Year Plan that was being implemented at the time. This essentially motivated people into achieving hefty tasks such as building a giant dam near Beijing.

- Backyard Steel Campaign: Emphasis on creating steel was heavy within the communes. 60,000 'backyard steel furnaces' were set up in towns and villages. Each one was only capable of making a couple tons of steel, but with the propaganda propelling people forward they were producing 11 million tons of steel, which was a 65% increase from the total in 1957.

3. Give examples of two legal methods and two examples of force Mao used to achieve his aims.

Legal:

-Propaganda

-The First Five-Year Plan

Force:

-Cooperatives: Families were forced into groups of 200-300 families. Families weren't paid for the use of their land, received wages only for their labor, were forced to surrender title deeds for their land and equipment and animals.

-Aftermath of 'The Hundred Flowers': Mao's critics while free speech was permitted were soon sent to camps in the country for "thought reform", some were fired from their jobs. Free speech was forbidden and press was censored.

4. Explain the cause-and-effect relationship between the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Three Bitter Years".

The basic problem of the "Great Leap Forward" was that it pushed for too much, and consequently things broke down. Overused factories lead to machines that were too old and overwork falling apart under strain, working falling asleep and being injured due to exhaustion-related accidents. The Backyard Steel campaign took a large number of workers, which took people out of the fields and reduced what could be grown; then, most of the steel produced was useless and had to be thrown away because the peasants didn't know how to produce it correctly. The coal that the B.S.C. took also lead to a shortage in the country's supplies, so railways were inoperative. The farming crisis also arose from the Great Leap Forward. The harvest in 1958 was poor because so many people were taken from the fields to pursue the new industrial goals, and because Party officials falsely claimed that the grain harvest was 260 million tons (perhaps to increase morale or appease Mao), which lead to communal eating halls giving peasants too-generous meals and using up food stocks. With the bad harvest of 1959 and all the chaos of the G.L.F.'s failure, there was a famine that killed 9 million people just in 1960.

5. Please give three examples from the reading of Mao using propaganda to achieve his aims.

- Lying about production: The government presumably lied about how much grain had been produced because it wanted to encourage the workers to do even more and exceed what they were doing at the time.

- Broadcasting: The use of loudspeakers playing patriotic songs and speeches that encouraged workers to meet and exceed the plans of the second 5 Year Plan was an effective propaganda method.

- Personal involvement: To make people even more enthusiastic about working for the Communists, Mao himself and members of the Politburo would come in and join in the work of building the dam in Beijing.

Mao's Aims

1. Increase industrial output

2. Make china a single party state

3. Gain support from the USSR

4. Rebuild China and build support from peasants and commoners

5. Improve agriculture so China can feed its people

6. Get and maintain power -->

7. Build China into a military superpower

Essay

"Mao's use of terrror and propaganda were his most effective methods of winning support from the peasants".

Based on the following sources, to what extent to you agree with that claim?

The sources presented give slightly different perceptions of how Mao won the peasants over, and it seems that each gives evidence for different parts of these claims. I agree with this claim to a great extent based on what these sources provide for historical facts.

According to chapter 10 of source A, "China Since 1900", Mao used propaganda to spread communist ideas in Northern China. For example, there is a propaganda poster issued in 1944 which shows peasants helping the Red Army in the war against Japan. This piece of propaganda would instill the idea that all peasants were eager and ready to serve the Communists, presumably because the Reds would help them in return. What could also be interpreted as evidence of propaganda is other movements that the source references, such as the "Women's Associations" which did things like helping women to free themselves of abusive husbands. It might have been in the dogma of the party, but it certainly didn't hurt the communists in winning support from women (peasant or not, one would think). However, this source makes it seem as if terror wasn't used to keep peasants in line at all: it specifically states that the Red Army "operated under strict discipline...never treating the peasants badly". It also states that when the people of Yanan were forced to flee to caves after the town was bombed, "the top leaders of the communist party lived in the caves and did not have any special luxuries that the common people did not have". So, this source indicates that while propaganda was used, terror was not.

This excerpt from "Modern World History" also indicates that terror was not used to keep the peasants in line. It states that the Communists won the people over by land reform instead: "they seized the estates of rich landlords and redistributed them among the peasants". It could be argued that Mao used violence to win support from the peasants, but violence (or force) against the landlords. Rich landlords had their land taken from them and the land was then redistributed to the peasants. This action makes sense with the Communist policy, so it doesn't qualify as propaganda; however, the fact that there was a series of droughts and bad harvests in 1930, and "plenty of rice and wheat being hoarded in the cities by profiteering merchants", so the timing of land redistribution was surely helpful to winning the people over. Not so much propaganda as strategically placed execution of policy.

Source C, an excerpt from "China Conquered", argues something quite different from sources A and B, claiming that Mao primarily used terror and violence in order to scare the peasants into supporting him. According to this source, anybody who was not with the Reds was a target for Mao's "mercilessness": an example of this was the blockade of Changchun, a nationalist-held city in Manchuria in 1948 which resulted in the deaths of 120,000 civilians (by the Communists' own watered-down count). In addition, young men were drafted forcibly into the Reds' army or into "hard, dangerous labor at the front". Many peasants lost their houses to the needs of the army such as fuel for fires and "materials for building bridges". There was also class warfare evident -- anybody who did not take place in the brutal violence against the landlords was considered a dissenter and would be punished accordingly: "anyone not active in denouncing landlords will be stoned to death". This source seems to say that propaganda was not necessary, because the peasants were terrorized into doing anything that the Communists wanted.

It is hard to come to a definitive conclusion based on these sources, because each seems to give a slightly different interpretation of what happened. However, based on them I would say that Mao used violence and propaganda as his main methods of winning peasants over.