Journals - Who Should Govern? http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki en-us no Unfaithful Father, Resisting Children http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/unfaithfulfatherresistingchildren http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/unfaithfulfatherresistingchildren <p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The "Great Father" metaphor was nearly century old by then, but the United States Government's paternalism on Indian policy grew much stronger after the military contest ended. They introduced the idea that a nuclear family is a core unit in the society to Indians who believed the tribe was the core unit of society. The government attempted to individualize each Indian in order to entitle him to what was called "the right to be a man." In the sense of the U.S. government, the manhood of the individual meant to be an independent subject in the capitalist framework. When they put the concept into practice, they did so by applying their glorious frontier history. The allotment policy was designed to make Indians homesteaders, setting aside to give the rest of land to ceaselessly incoming White immigrants.</p> <p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Being an independent farmer, however, means to deprive an Indian of his large family groups. The allotment act was enacted only to suit Washington's intention, and not for the Indian's actual situation. Farming and living on a reservation were acceptable in the eyes of the Indians. However, an independent yeoman-ship in a capitalistic society was not. Culturally or economically, they were not ready to abandon their collective way of living. The Allotment policy did not take the impact of land fragmentation into consideration either. The Portland &amp; Beyond article plainly describes today's aftereffects of the policy by presenting an old Indian reservation's story that htey are facing a deadlock because of the land fragmentation.</p> <p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It is true that the United States government started playing an extremely paternal role in the post-frontier Native American policies, but their paternalism was actually self-serving and did not benefit their children's welfare. In this sense, the allotment policy turned the U.S. government into the "unfaithful father" and the Indians into the "resisting children," who were deprived of their true identity and independence.</p> Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:47:37 -0400 Who Freed Slaves? http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/whofreedslaves http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/whofreedslaves <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Barbara J Fields evokes our understanding of democracy in her article, &ldquo;<em>Who Freed The Slaves</em>.&rdquo; She criticizes Lincoln, saying, &ldquo;Although Lincoln privately believed that slavery was wrong and wished it might be abolished, his public policy faithfully reflected the standpoint of those for whom the war was an issue between free, white citizens: between unionists and secessionists, between right judged by free-soil northerners and rights claimed by slaveholding southerners.&rdquo; She argues that Lincoln eventually freed slaves only for practical reasons in order to preserve the Union, which was his main objective. According to her, slaves instead freed themselves. She would definitely agree with the conclusion that &ldquo;the image of him [Lincoln] as the Great Emancipator is a myth created by whites to deprive blacks of credit for achieving their own freedom,&rdquo; as McPherson mentions in his article, &ldquo;<em>Who Freed The Slaves</em>.&rdquo; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">The United States&rsquo; democracy has thrived with the underlying assumption that sovereignty rests with the people. However, this does not mean that the President of the United States is only the embodiment of public will and his personality does not matter. A president&rsquo;s personality always plays a part. It was Lincoln who freed the slaves. Had Lincoln not been the president at the time, the United States would not have seen the emancipation. Slaves freed themselves to only some degree. Although Fields suggests that military men learned firsthand that the two [the war and the question of slavery] were inextricably linked, Lincoln also understood it. He actually had a better understanding of this than the military officers. Yet his position was totally different from John C Fremont&rsquo;s or Benjamin Butler&rsquo;s. He was president. He had to win the war. He had to preserve the Union. He had to stay in the White House. Otherwise, he could not have freed the slaves. His mission was not simply defeating the enemy under his very nose. He had to preserve the Union to free the slaves and he had to free the slaves to preserve the Union. Nobody understood this better than Lincoln himself. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">As president, he never abandoned his moral principles. He believed that slavery was wrong and should be abolished. It was harder than we imagine not to compromise in a situation where military successes were not yet won, and &ldquo;even Republicans like Horace Greeley, who had criticized Lincoln two years earlier for slowness to embrace emancipation, now criticized him for refusing to abandon it as a precondition for negotiations.&rdquo; As the embodiment of public will, he had to balance every different viewpoint. Lincoln well understood that he needed military victories. As commander in chief, he indeed brought victory to the Union and emancipated the slaves. After all, Lincoln&rsquo;s great political skills in understanding public opinion and having good timing enabled him to achieve his goal. Preserving the Union and freeing slaves were not two goals for him. It was actually through one goal that the two issues were &ldquo;inextricably linked&rdquo; for Lincoln. None of the presidential candidates except Lincoln in the elections of 1860 or 1864 possessed such skills. Lincoln freed slaves &ldquo;by pronouncing slavery a moral evil that must come to an end and then winning the presidency in 1860, by refusing to compromise on the issue of slavery&rsquo;s expansion or on Fort Sumter, by careful leadership and timing that kept a fragile Unionists&rsquo; coalition together in the first year of war and committed it to emancipation in the second, by refusing to compromise this policy once he had adopted it, and by prosecuting the war to unconditional victory as commander in chief of an army of liberation.&rdquo; It is true that the anonymous overwhelming majority can make history. Fields makes some valid points. Slaves freed themselves to some degree. Military leaders also contributed to emancipation by creating the notion of contraband. However, they were not the whole story. We can never underestimate the influence that one leader has on history, especially when the leader is one of the greatest historical figures that the world has ever seen. Lincoln is still overseeing this country from the riverbank of the Potomac.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;"> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bibliography</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Barbara J. Fields. "Who Freed the Slaves.?": Goeffrey C. Ward, The Civil War: An Illustrated History (1990). 178-181.</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">James M. McPherson. "Who Freed the Slaves?." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society: Vol. 139, No. 1 (1995): 1-10.</p> </span> <!--EndFragment--></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Sat, 08 May 2010 17:43:33 -0400 Southern Honor http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/southernhonor http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/southernhonor <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">"As a member of the William and Mary community, I pledge on my honor not to lie, cheat, or steal, either in my academic or personal life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>I understand that such acts violate the Honor Code and undermine the community of trust, of which we are all stewards."</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">When I took this pledge in the Wren Building, I had the feeling of becoming a true member of William and Mary, a college, which represents tradition, sophistication and honor. This &ldquo;newest old campus&rdquo; of America has been an epitome of southern honor since its foundation. Honor was, especially in the South, a very complicated concept. It encompassed two things that seemed diametrically opposite of each other &ndash; refinement and violence. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Refinement was a sign of honor. When their honor was challenged, southerners resorted to violence. Colleges in the Old South saw a number of cases in which students hovering in the middle between the world of adulthood and childhood faced the issue of maintaining their honor. Being away from home and given the freedom they had previously never enjoyed in their lives, these students assumed that they were expected to live as adults, regardless of their immaturity. They sometimes resorted to violence to protect their honor, and other times they were trapped in the space between maturity and immaturity. Edward Baptist&rsquo;s case symbolized this dilemma. When he prepared his speech, his friend, James T. Killough, played a prank on him. Offended by Killough&rsquo;s mischief, Baptist challenged him to a fight. Although Baptist meant a fistfight, Killough took the challenge differently, and announced they would duel with knives. &ldquo;Baptist, therefore, found himself in the midst of a dilemma: he had only intended a fistfight, but the southern honor ethic that guided his society dictated that if he backed down from this deadly path he would be branded a coward &ndash; a label that could follow him the rest of his life.&rdquo; Students even pulled a trigger during fights once in a while. It was not uncommon for them to conceal weapons to settle conflicts of honor in duels. &ldquo;This reality planted them firmly in the world of the Old South, and helped them define who they were.&rdquo; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">College was for training local elites in the South. As those would-be elites developed their sense of honor, they created a unique southern culture. In the South, refinement and violence were actually inseparable. Honor was also a fundamental rationale for slavery in the South. Northerners never understood the significance of Southern honor, and these differences eventually resulted in the Civil War. Southern honor was, if not the only causing factor, definitely one of the main reasons that were responsible for the breakout of the Civil War.</span>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;"> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bibliography</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Robert F. Pace. "Honor and Violence.": Halls of Honor: College Men in the Old South (2004):82-97.</p> </span> <!--EndFragment--></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Sat, 08 May 2010 17:41:20 -0400 Racism Prevailed http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/racismprevailed http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/racismprevailed <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: " lang="EN-US">A number of &ldquo;isms&rdquo; exist in this country today. Racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, able-ism, anti-Semitism&hellip;the list goes on and on. In the early 19<sup>th</sup>-century, racism and sexism were the most widespread of these &ldquo;isms&rdquo; in American culture. Blacks and women, however, were not completely oppressed all of the time during this era. They were trying to obtain freedom within a confined space. Since the Pilgrim Fathers, women have been treated equal to men within the Christian Church. Also, as Gordon-Reed points out in last week&rsquo;s reading, racism in the 19<sup>th</sup>-century was different from as it is today.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: " lang="EN-US">Slavery was present in many different forms, and the majority of them were different form the southern plantation style slavery that we easily associate the institution with today. &ldquo;Slaves in Richmond, especially enslaved men, often lived away from their owners in the countryside, who sent them to the capital to be hired out when they were not needed in the field.&rdquo; Those enslaved men worked with whites side by side, and boosted the capitol&rsquo;s economy. Gabriel was an example of this situation. He enjoyed far better freedom than plantation slaves and was allowed to earn his own money in Richmond. While he was eager for freedom for himself and his fellow slaves, he interestingly enough did not see all whites as his opponents. He rather considered merchants, not his owner, as his enemies since they took advantage of his weak social standing and abused him for his labor. In a conspiracy plot, Gabriel found his chance in the partisanship that also flourished in the early 18<sup>th</sup> century. Although he knew from the beginning that his plot would likely not appeal to most whites, he thought that the men of his race could connect with those of Jeffersonian sentiment that shared his hostility toward merchants and wanted equality and freedom for all. Gabriel simply failed to recognize that &ldquo;the Jeffersonian cry for liberty and equality was meant to apply to whites only.&rdquo; Different as it was from today, racism still existed. Negros were Negros.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>&ldquo;If Gabriel had intended to treat hostage Monroe with leniency, such magnanimity was not returned, especially from Republicans who were startled to discover that their slaves believed they had a common enemy in the merchants.&rdquo; It was too late for Gabriel to realize this before he was hanged. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: " lang="EN-US">Women also actively challenged their traditional roles in the early 19<sup>th</sup>-century. Since America had a truly national mobile party system, women lay claim to their Republican motherhood. Whigs reached out to women first. Virginian women&rsquo;s excitement about Daniel Webster&rsquo;s address symbolized their new roles in politics, but also their limits. Women were required to affirm their husbands&rsquo; honor by actively supporting their candidates, but they could not vote themselves. The erection of a Henry Clay statue was the only way to assert their power within a limited field, revolutionary as it was from an 1840&rsquo;s perspective. Women&rsquo;s participation in partisanship, however, faded away as regionalism spurred by racism led to the Civil War. &ldquo;For the southern Whigs and southern Democrats, in contrast to northern ones, claimed their party and they alone could simultaneously protect slavery from northern intervention and preserve the Union.&rdquo; The freedom and equality that blacks and women enjoyed in the early 19<sup>th</sup>-century were very superficial and allowed to them in accordance with white males&rsquo; interests. The proof is that &ldquo;the political mobilization of white women that began in 1840 culminated, not in the formation of a woman suffrage movement, but in active support of the Confederacy by most women and active support of the Union by some.&rdquo; As two historical compromise bills represent, the antebellum was an era of balancing double standards from which Americans suffered. The Civil War broke out once society could no longer sustain the balance.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span></p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bibliography</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Egerton, Douglas R. "Gabriel's Conspiracy and the Election of 1800."The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 56, No. 2 (1990): 191-214.</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Rothman, Joshua D. "The Church and the Brothel are Only Separated by a Pane of Glass.": Sex and Race on the Streets of Richmond, (2003): 92-132.</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Varon, Elizabeth R. "Tippecanoe and the Ladies, Too: white Women and Party Politics in Antebellum Virginia, "Journal of American History, Vol. 82, No. 2 (1995): 424-521.</p> Sat, 08 May 2010 17:38:16 -0400 A Sage at Monticello http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/asageatmonticello http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/asageatmonticello <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Jesus once said, &ldquo;A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden." However, this was not the case for Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest historical figures that America can boast of, and our College&rsquo;s most notable alumnus. Jefferson built his house on top of a mountain &ldquo;to have freedom, privacy, and dominion over himself,&rdquo; and even more than that, to hide his contradictions from the public.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: " lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Jefferson was once considered a man capable of solving the problems that America faces today, but some now harshly criticize him for being rather the epitome of these problems. While he was an enthusiastic advocate for the ideals of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, he reigned over slaves at Monticello at the same time. He rarely freed his slaves when he was alive because his extravagances constantly put him in debt, and he &ldquo;thought</span><span lang="EN-US"> they provided the ultimate form of security for the family.&rdquo; He did not even free them at his death as George Washington did. Instead, he let his family auction them off to pay back their debts. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>These facts alone are enough to make him a controversial figure, but what makes Jefferson the most controversial among the Founding Fathers is that he was in &ldquo;moral debt&rdquo; to an enslaved woman &ndash;Sally Hemings. It is now widely recognized that he had a relationship with Hemings and fathered several children by her. Gordon-Reed points out that &ldquo;the rape of black women was endemic to slavery; the no-possible-consent rule says that whether Jefferson used force or charm on Hemings is of no great moment.&rdquo; Since slaves were their masters&rsquo; property, there was no situation in which they were treated as equals. Every slave woman who had a sexual relationship with her white master suffered from the conflict between legal and natural right. Hemings &ldquo;would be a traitor who denied the reality of her enslavement and provided her enemy-Jefferson- with something that he very much wanted, while keeping her body from the men who shared her oppression and thus had a superior moral claim to it, that is to say, African American males.&rdquo; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>It was true that &ldquo;Jefferson did not envision Hemings as a potential legal bride,&rdquo; yet Gordon-Reed also admits that we cannot underestimate their personal relationship simply because Jefferson raped Hemings in the no-possible-consent rule framework. Hemings, as a teenage girl, chose to remain by the side of Jefferson who promised her good treatment and her children future freedom, rather than to free herself by escaping to the courthouse in Paris. Rather, Hemings shared something with Jefferson. &ldquo;She apparently did not see herself in either of the last two roles [victim of rape, or degraded sexual object], which puts her into something of a historical and cultural bind, trapped between both gender and race-related stereotypes that inhibit nuanced considerations of her life.&rdquo; Jefferson&rsquo;s contradictions were mirrored in Hemings and she compromised her womanhood for her children&rsquo;s future in the same way that Jefferson compromised his ideals when he acknowledged reality and omitted slaves&rsquo; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence. They meant something more than slave-master relationship to each other. Whether Jefferson was a patriarchal or more equal figure in regards to Hemings, Jefferson doubtlessly held affection towards her.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Jefferson was not always benevolent to his every slave as he was to Hemings. &ldquo;He acted to protect what he considered to be the femininity of Hemings and her female relatives, while failing to show similar concerns for other enslaved women on his plantations.&rdquo; Although race and American slavery were deeply intertwined, Jefferson&rsquo;s failure to show concerns for his slaves is not proof that Jefferson was a racist in today&rsquo;s terms. The notion of a single black race was a product of the Reconstruction period, and &ldquo;eighteenth-century people of African origin, like Hemings, did not have the same sense of African American identity as blacks in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.&rdquo; Furthermore, it was common practice for Virginia plantation owners to have slaves in his time. Although people constantly challenged the morality of slavery, every slave owner was reluctant to relinquish their privileges. It was more understandable when the owner suffered from chronic debt. We cannot pass judgment on him about his slave ownership using our modern perspectives.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Jefferson is remembered as the way he actually was; the greatest public servant that America has ever had. Jefferson, after all, was not saint. He was not able to free his slaves because of his financial situation. To sustain his gentility, he had to keep his extravagancies. Otherwise he could not have been entrusted to draft the most significant document in the U.S. history. We would have lost our greatest public servant in that case. He did not free Hemings in particular because he was reluctant to let her go away. As a normal man, Jefferson had strong monopolistic desires and jealousy for his beloved woman. He happened to love a girl whose social status did not let them be married, but he did his best to provide Hemings with all what she wanted so long as he could afford it. It goes without saying that his affection for her does not blemish his fame. Thomas Jefferson&rsquo;s palace will remain shining as a symbol of this great nation far into the future.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;"> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bibliography</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Gordon-Reed, Annette. "The Teenagers and the Woman," and "His promises on Which She Implicitly Relied," and "The Treaty" and " Did they Love Each Other", chapters 15, 16, &amp; 17 from her book, The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (2008), 308-375.</p> </span></p> Sat, 08 May 2010 17:33:50 -0400 The Farmer's First Lady http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/thefarmersfirstlady http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/thefarmersfirstlady <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: " lang="EN-US">Today, we cannot discuss American presidential elections without mentioning two factors &ndash; the Bill of Rights and presidential candidates&rsquo; partners. The right to bear arms as written in the Bill of Rights and who will be our First Lady are always sensational topics during elections. We owe this situation to one great short scholar from Montpelier. Given his contribution to the new nation, the title &ldquo;Little Giant&rdquo; now used to describe Stephen Douglass should be given back to James Madison, who was the father of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights. He was also referred to as &ldquo;the farmer&rdquo; by his lifetime mentor, Thomas Jefferson, and his wife, Dolly, won the title &ldquo;First Lady&rdquo; for the first time in the U.S. history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: " lang="EN-US">Madison had many things in common with the greatest figure in the era or even in the U.S. history &ndash; George Washington, the first president of the nation. They both were Virginians, wealthy plantation owners, and slave owners, and they both married widows. They were also both moderate federalists, although Madison switched his affiliation later in his life. However, unlike George Washington whose dignity was never challenged, Madison&rsquo;s legacy had been constantly challenged. &ldquo;In politics, size mattered, and James&rsquo;s enemies used his slight statute and his intellectual &lsquo;coldness&rsquo; as signs of impotence and infertility.&rdquo;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>In addition, unlike Washington or James Monroe who fought with Washington and threatened Madison&rsquo;s congressional seat, Madison had no military experience. When Jefferson appointed Madison as his secretary of state and practically as his successor, people almost identified Madison as his mentor who retreated &ldquo;from the oncoming British during the Revolution.&rdquo; Madison had to fight the popular image of himself as a fragile scholar, and his reputation declined due to the infamous Embargo Act under the Jefferson administration. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: " lang="EN-US">Madison also had to deal with factional politics when he struggled to pass the Bill of Rights, while Washington publicly denounced partisan politics. Although it is not uncommon to see negative comments in today&rsquo;s presidential campaigns, in Madison&rsquo;s case, he undermined himself and his honor to some degree when he attacked his political opponents. Furthermore, at the time, &ldquo;to show one&rsquo;s ambition on the stump, making promises to constituents or Congress, would demonstrate a candidate&rsquo;s essential unfitness for the public trust.&rdquo; Madison was literally trapped by factional politics and his unfavorable image. It was fortunate of him to marry Dolly, who had the charisma that Madison did not carry. While &ldquo;James Madison was no George Washington,&rdquo; Martha Washington was no Dolly Madison. Whether at Montpelier or the White House, Dolly entertained Madison&rsquo;s political allies, opponents, mentors, prot&eacute;g&eacute;s and whomever else they invited. Even deprived of suffrage, Dolly symbolized how upper-class American ladies could still contribute to politics. Madison could not have been even half the great servant that he was without his wife. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: " lang="EN-US">The fact that he largely owed Dolly his political success does not necessarily undermine his abilities. After all, Madison had to juggle many things and it was ingenious of him to follow through on his achievements. No one can compare with him as a father of documents that would still be regarded as indispensable to democracy over 200 years later. Dolly could not have done anything without the name of Madison. Rather, it should be noted that a man&rsquo;s genius could not be highlighted without a woman&rsquo;s recognition.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;"> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bibliography:</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Allgor, Catherine. "Sex, Lies, and the Election of 1808". A Perfect Union: Dolley&nbsp;Madison and the Creation of the American Nation (2006): 121-138.</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Allgor, Catherine. "Washington Women in Public". Parlor Politics, In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government (2000): 102-146.</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 14px; color: #1d1d1d;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;">Bowling, Kenneth R. "A Tub to the Whale": The Founding Fathers and Adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights", Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1988): 223-251.</span>&nbsp;</span></p> </span> <!--EndFragment--></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Sat, 08 May 2010 17:31:16 -0400 Sense and Sensibilities http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/senseandsensibilities http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/senseandsensibilities <p><!--StartFragment--> <p style="margin-top: .15pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: .15pt; margin-left: 0cm; line-height: 15.2pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;;" lang="EN-US">The English first settled in Chesapeake, Virginia in 1607. Once seen as a promised land offering a chance for equality, American soil had become the home of a gradually stratifying society over the course of almost two hundred years until 1776. It was in that year that the Founding Fathers reiterated the ideal of equality that should be enjoyed by Americans.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;" lang="EN-GB"> </span></p> <p style="margin-top: .15pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: .15pt; margin-left: 0cm; line-height: 15.2pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As classes emerged in America shortly after the food supply had been stabilized, the wealthy tried to consolidate their footing by refining themselves by means of status symbols. They could not be seen as refined without wealth, but at the same time, &ldquo;wealth did not determine status; it purchased opportunity.&rdquo; In this sense, the character of Gatsby in F. Scott Fitzgerald&rsquo;s <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Great Gatsby</em> could never have been refined. He was merely an object of contempt to Tom Buchanan as Morison was to Alexander Hamilton. The elite of America used sophisticated eating habits, dress styles,</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;;" lang="EN-US"> postures, speech and</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;" lang="EN-GB"> writing styles to distinguish themselves from others. Their mansions gave them status, such as the Moses Meyers house in Richmond was constructed to do. George Washington was many times cited as a perfect example of refinement in the Bushman piece, and the Founding Fathers embodied American ideas of refinement precisely because &ldquo;those who lacked taste generally lacked power&rdquo; in the Revolution. Yet, they were not necessarily as aristocratic as their English counterparts despite their similar tendencies and tastes. The American gentry were only upper-middle-class by English standards, and in contrast to England, &ldquo;poor Americans ate much better than poor Englishmen.&rdquo;</span></p> <p style="margin-top: .15pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: .15pt; margin-left: 0cm; line-height: 15.2pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One could argue that American society was much more egalitarian than that of the mother country at the time of the Revolution. It was totally understandable that the Founding Fathers believed in equality. However, Bushman overlooks one very important point - slavery. </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;;" lang="EN-US">England abolished slavery in 1772, while most of the Founding Fathers remained slave owners. How did they deal with an institution that was not considered refined by British standards? They concealed it. They did so &ldquo;in the interest of beauty and harmony.&rdquo; The Founding Fathers cautiously avoided using the term slave in the never-fading document to conceal situations that were contradictory to their ideals, rather than get rid of the institution while &ldquo;some aspects of life like cooking and washing disappeared into the back of the house.&rdquo;</span></p> <p style="margin-top: .15pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: .15pt; margin-left: 0cm; line-height: 15.2pt;">&nbsp;</p> <p style="margin-top: .15pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: .15pt; margin-left: 0cm; line-height: 15.2pt;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; line-height: 19px; font-size: 13px;"> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bibliography</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bushman, Richard. "Bodies and Minds. " Chapter 3 from his book, the Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities (1992): 61-99</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Herman, Bernard, "The Merchant Family's House, " Chapter 2 from his book, Town House: Architecture and Material Life in the Early American City, 1780-1830 (2005): 33-76</p> </span></p> <!--EndFragment--></p> Sat, 08 May 2010 17:29:25 -0400 Who fought the war? http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/whofoughtthewar http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/whofoughtthewar <p><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">When asked about what Americans fought for in the Revolutionary War, most people think that &ldquo;liberty&rdquo; is a convincing, or at least satisfactory, answer. For over 200 years, Americans have not questioned this belief. However, nowadays the question itself is no longer simple. Many people have started to ask the question of exactly whose liberty was being fought for in the war. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Minority issues have haunted the United States since the Founding Fathers adopted the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The Founding Fathers, while providing rationales for the independence of the most liberal nation in the era, could not answer why their institution contradicted the principles of life, liberty and equality upon which the newly born nation was founded. Therefore, out of wisdom and a sense of convenient humility, they chose to compromise. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">As &ldquo;children of the enlightenment,&rdquo; the Founding Fathers doubtlessly had a guilty conscious about slavery. However, at the same time, most of them were wealthy plantation owners from the upper South. They could not have gained access to enlightenment-era education without the financial affordability of slavery. In the end, they did not free any slaves. Instead, they maintained the pretense that they were great guardians of liberty by taking gradual steps to bring about the demise of slavery. By doing so, they secured an &ldquo;emotional benefit without financial loss.&rdquo; Their efforts seemed hypocritical to other slave owners and to the slaves themselves. &ldquo;Farther south, however, in South Carolina and Georgia, planters suffered from an acute shortage of labor and bitterly resisted what they considered the hypocritical efforts of those who now had enough slaves suddenly to force other to do without.&rdquo; Slaves realized the war was not their war. They were well aware of the rhetoric of life, liberty and equality. They knew the notion of white American&rsquo;s right to have property overpowered their own liberty or equality. Yet, they did not remain neutral onlookers. They took chances to run away from their masters during warfare when they could, or they fought with British for their freedom. In this situation, it was hardly possible that the Founding Fathers would issue their emancipation.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">However, the American Revolutionary War was the best chance for freeing slaves (as well as the year 1863). The war, as the name suggests, was quite revolutionary, and totally changing the social structure. The greatest contradiction concerning the Founding Fathers was that they believed in the gradual emancipation of slaves, while at the same time advocating for the revolutionary transformation of society. What comes after a revolution is always reactionary. In addition, the more gradual a reform is, the easier it is to be rolled back. Conservatism that emerged after the Revolutionary War easily rolled back the gradual emancipation of slaves that the Founding Fathers supported. It is noteworthy that Thomas Paine; once welcomed as a hero of the day, &ldquo;was reviled as a radical and an infidel&rdquo; by the time of his death in 1809. Thus, &ldquo;more slaves entered the United States between 1787 and 1807 than during any other two decades in history.&rdquo; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">It is ironic that the Confederate capital was in Richmond, even while &ldquo;the [upper] South was home to much of the most liberal social thought in America.&rdquo; However, we cannot simply dismiss the ideals that the Founding Fathers held merely by the fact that they compromised rather than radically resolve the problem of slavery. Thomas Jefferson championed republicanism and never renounced his belief that slavery was wrong, and we cannot dismiss the ideas that Jefferson embodied simply because he continued to own slaves. After all, the greater a man is, the greater his contradictions. Jefferson set a precedent for the next generation to make reality consistent with the splendid ideals embodied in his never-fading document.</span></p> <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;"> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">Bibliography</p> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 14px; color: #1d1d1d;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif; font-size: 13px;">Kolchin, Peter. "Slavery and the American Revolution." From his book, American Slavery, 1619-1877</span>&nbsp;</span></p> </span> <!--EndFragment--></p> Sat, 08 May 2010 17:28:31 -0400 Only a Dead American Is Quiet. http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/onlyadeadamericanisquiet http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/onlyadeadamericanisquiet <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="white-space: pre;"> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span>Graham Greene&rsquo;s &ldquo;The Quiet American&rdquo; is a literal masterpiece that successfully draws a bigger picture of the real world from a small-scale fiction. The plot starts when Fowler, a British journalist, meets a young American named Pyle in Saigon in 1951 when Vietnam is in the First Indochina War fought between French colonialists assisted by the British and the Vietnamese communists. Pyle comes to love Fowler&rsquo;s Vietnamese mistress, Phuong as they build up their friendship. They maintain their relationship even after Pyle steals Phuong, but Pyle is found as a drowned body when he is about to marry her.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Greene buildes Pyle&rsquo;s character through Fowler, who once remarks: &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve never met a man who had better motives for all the troubles he&rsquo;s caused.&rdquo;<span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>Pyle has a strong sense of righteousness. He believes in York Harding, who is a proponent of the &ldquo;Third Force&rdquo; theory. It proposes that the U.S. should intervene in Vietnam as a third force to bring about popular democracy free from colonialism or communism. Pyle would sincerely like to help the Vietnamese and puts Harding&rsquo;s theory into practice as it is. He is engaged in covert operations as an OSS agent and deals with plastics that are used for making bombs. He supports General Th&#7879;, who never shares Pyle&rsquo;s democratic ideal. Despite his good intensions, Pyle never does any good to the Vietnamese. Pyle is so self-righteous that he is nonchalant even when General Th&#7879; stirred a bicycle bombing. He rather cares about spots on his shoes than the dead Vietnamese. Fowler is disappointed at Pyle and finally lends his hands to communists to assassinate Pyle.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Greene is very critical of Pyle. Innocence is sometimes guilty. Pyle is almost colonialist while he is innocent of it for himself. He seemingly treats Phuong equally but not in reality. He scales everything on his standards since he believes all he does is for Phuong. Pyle&rsquo;s logic is an analogy of colonialists&rsquo; one that they rule the "uncivilized savages" for their good. Greene implies Pyle&rsquo;s innocence with which Fowler cannot put up causes troubles in Vietnam. He is harsh on Harding and the U.S. as well as Pyle. Pyle represents the United States in a way. Pyle is an innocent, ignorant and passionate young American. Pyle&rsquo;s virginity connotes the U.S.&rsquo;s immaturity as a great power. That Pyle deals with plastics also symbolizes that the U.S. is still a new power in the 1950s.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Although Greene is harsh on American innocence, he admits certain good points of their heroism. Pyle saves Fowler&rsquo;s life in the story. His innocent heroism works out once in a while and he is pitiful in a sense that he is plotted to be murdered by the man whose life he saved. Furthermore, he regards Fowler as the best friend until his death. Fowler has better understandings about Vietnam, but he is unwilling to do anything good for the Vietnamese unlike Pyle. He is rather apathetic about politics and takes no side to be a neutral journalist. He wants the status quo, which his unwillingness to marry Phuong indicates.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Greene is not necessarily in favor of Fowler either. Greene intentionally weaves an irony that the only thing that Fowler does for the Vietnamese is helping to kill his savior. Fowler might seem wiser than Pyle, but he is also shrewd and cynical. He gets Phuong back after Pyle&rsquo;s death and lives as if nothing happened. He shows only superficial regrets about killing Pyle in the last part of the story. This contrast between the experienced, cunning Europeans and innocent, idealistic but inexperienced Americans is one of this story&rsquo;s main themes. The contrast has been internationally demonstrated since the Paris Peace Conference in which European shrewdness and cynicism mercilessly defeated Woodrow Wilson&rsquo;s idealism.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Greene here employs his great skill to draw a bigger picture from a small-scale story in that the relationship of Pyle and Fowler eloquently speaks about the special Anglo-American relations. As Pyle steals Phuong from Fowler, Britain suffers from its declining international hegemony, which has shifted to the U.S., in the 1950s. As a British, Greene is bitter on it and describes the U.S. as a new rich country. There is a symbolic scene in which Fowler suspects that Pyle&rsquo;s confidence to talk Phuong into marrying him comes from the U.S. dollar&rsquo;s ascendency over the U.K. pound. While the U.S.&rsquo;s enlarged economy and military strengthens its presence in the world, it is still a developing great power. The Americans have to rely on European experiences as Pyle relies on Fowler for translation to communicate with Phuong. Otherwise, the Americans are deemed trapped in a deadlock as Pyle is assassinated. However, as mentioned, Greene does not highly value European experiences either. The Europeans&rsquo; preference to sustain the status quo does nothing but sustaining colonialism after all. As early as in the 1950s, Greene amazingly penetrates that there is no outside force that can solute Vietnam&rsquo;s problems.<span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Vietnamese want neither traditional colonial power nor imposed democracy. They just have no say and are given little attention. Greene does not spend so many pages for Phuong&rsquo;s character development. The title, &ldquo;The Quiet American&rdquo; is puzzling since Phuong is much quieter than Pyle. The story seems to lack Asian perspectives. However, as for Phuong, silence speaks for itself. Greene implicitly shows his deeper respects to the toughness of the Vietnamese. They are pragmatic enough not to get trapped in isms. Their experiences enable them to pick up survival skills in a chaotic world. Phuong always acts on her interests and sways between Pyle and Fowler. When she judges that Pyle offers her more benefits, she is willing to marry Pyle. Once she realizes Pyle&rsquo;s the facade of rhetoric, however, she calmly comes back to Fowler. Some readers might feel that Greene feminizes Vietnam and the survival skills are not honorable, but Greene is rather impressed with their tenacity to surviving the stern reality.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>One should rule out a simple assumption that Pyle alone symbolizes all the American characteristics, Fowler all the British ones, or Phuong all the Vietnamese ones. They all represent some tendencies of their own people&rsquo;s behavior, but certainly not all of them. Greene provides many resources to avoid over-generalization. Pyle is young elite from Boston who is more likely to be an armchair scholar in Washington than the average American. While Pyle is a typical American in a way, Granger presents another image of American. Likewise, Phuong and her sister show two different types of survival skills possessed by the Vietnamese. It is also noteworthy that Pyle is a Unitarian and Fowler is an atheist. Fowler apparently is not a "typical" British. Pyle is more religious than Fowler but has a unique sense of God because of his Unitarianism, which is a heresy due to its denial of the trinity. Pyle is not a typical American in that sense.<span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" lang="EN-US"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Although Greene never simplifies anything and provides many aspects of the situations in Vietnam in the 1950s, he basically has strong antipathy against the European and American policies presided by elites like Fowler or Pyle. Greene&rsquo;s foresight is remarkable in that he already predicts the result of the U.S.&rsquo;s intervention in Vietnam as early as in the 1950s. He accurately points out that the U.S. always fails when it turns to ideology as is proven in Vietnam and Iraq War. Vietnam&rsquo;s victorious independence satisfies his deeper appreciations of the Vietnamese survival techniques.</span></span></span></p> Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:29:05 -0400 Forming Historical Perceptions http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/forminghistoricalperceptions http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/post/kuzuki/forminghistoricalperceptions <p><!--StartFragment--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; font-family: " lang="EN-US"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>As the United States went through the Pacific War and headed into the Cold War, the Americans realized that their republican isolation ideal, which had been rooted in the Monroe Doctrine, did not work anymore in the globalized world. They now had to play the leading role in containing communism. In order to do so, the United States sought for alliances in the Third World. Klein points out that the Americans modified their approach to Asia in that process, shifting from racism to integration policy based on mutual understandings. History proves Klein&rsquo;s argument. In the 1960&rsquo;s, Civil Rights movement achieved the universal suffrage in the United States, while Asian and African countries gained independence one after another. Klein&rsquo;s thesis is phenomenal in that it suggests a completely opposite view to ones of Said and Lee, who describe the relationship between the east and the west as an oppression of the east by the imperial west.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; font-family: " lang="EN-US">The Americans did not necessarily try to understand Asia per se. They were rather interested in their own foothold as a global power. They paid greater attention to Asia simply because it was a relative important piece from the globalization perspectives. Although Klein presents &ldquo;The King and I&rdquo; as a good example of the American racial integration policy, the film actually has both racist and integrationist phases. The movie emphasizes the importance of mutual understandings and superficially equates Siam to England, while most of the Siam kids are faceless, collective Asians, which is reminiscent of Dower&rsquo;s &ldquo;faceless Japanese&rdquo; argument. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; font-family: " lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In &ldquo;The King and I,&rdquo; Anne, a protagonist, is not merely a governess but also a private diplomat. She is a catalyst for the integration of east and west. The U.S government promoted tourism, expecting their fellow Americans to be individual envoys like Anne. The American tourists were supposed to foster mutual understandings with foreigners as well as to show off their extravagances. The government also assumed that the money spent by the tourists would finally flow back to the United States as economically stimulated countries bought American products. However, &ldquo;the politicization of the tourist as an agent and emblem of American expansion carried a certain risk&rdquo; (Klein 140). Although Anne&rsquo;s success in the story fostered an illusion that Asia unconditionally embraced the west, the American tourists rather faced strong anti-American sentiments throughout Asia in reality. President Eisenhower even canceled his good-will trip plan to Japan: the U.S.'s most important ally in Asia. The U.S.&rsquo;s integration policy for which Klein argued did not necessarily work. While Klein got to a certain point, Lee and Said also grasped other points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; font-family: " lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is noteworthy that Klein is a white and Lee is an Asian American scholar. Historians&rsquo; own backgrounds are likely to largely influence in forming their historical perceptions. Both of their arguments make sense in part; however, it is also obvious that they both are short of sufficient convincing factors to explain the complicated Trans-Pacific chronology to a certain extent. It is next to impossible to explain everything with only a single theory in historical context. Taking a variety of thoughts and factors into account is prerequisite to a comprehensive understanding of history.&nbsp;</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: #000000; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">Dower,John W.&nbsp;<em>War Without Mercy.</em>&nbsp;New York: Pantheon Books, 1986.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: #000000; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">Klein,Christina.&nbsp;<em>Cold War Orientalism.</em>&nbsp;Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003.</span></p> <p><!--EndFragment--></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:25:16 -0400