Hayden White philosophy of history position paper

Four different emplotments and interpretation

It is truly interesting to know the different ways that are possible to interpret a single event of history. According to Hayden White’s philosophy of history, we can interpret a single even in four different ways categorizing it in four different emplotment.

To White, history is poetically constructed. And for White, any historical text should take a form of narrative prose. He uses the word “mediating” which refers to the narration process that I will discuss in next few paragraphs.

The first element is the historical field. Historical field refers to the unprocessed past which is just past by itself. The history that we learn in school is a processed past that we can gain knowledge and understanding from it but in the case of historical field it is unprocessed therefore it is hard or nearly impossible to understand before it has been processed.

The second element is historical work mediating between the historical field and unprocessed historical record. This refers to documents and data, historical artifacts that hasn’t been processed and hasn’t been formulated in anyways.

The third element is historical accounts. In order for a historian to come up with a correct interpretation of given set of documents from the past, the historian should first locate the primary source and read all of the important things that the historian is setting his foot on. In this way, the historian can clarify his own interpretation with the preceding authors and other primary sources in order to know the accuracy of his own interpretation.

The forth and the last element, the historical work mediates with all the elements stated above, historical field, the unprocessed historical record, and other historical accounts, and finally the audience.

According to White, this historical work that mediates with other narration processes has five levels, chronicle, story, motive emplotment, motive argument, and motive ideological implication.

I will begin to explain these five levels briefly yet understandably. The first level is chronicle. Chronicle is basically the ordering of events that have occurred. We use historical timeline in order to arrange the past data that has been found.

The second level is story. Story is a chronicle which is of course organized by historical timeline and consists beginning, middle, and the end using words like “at first,” “then,” and “finally.”

The third level is motive emplotment where I got my idea for the title of this position paper. Motive emplotment already has the chronicle which means it is organized according to the historical timeline and has different kinds of stories.
And there are four modes of emplotment.

The first mode is romance. Romance is a story of a hero who has difficulties yet achieves the triumph. This triumph is always good over evil. For example there are many movies in Hollywood nowadays dealing with heroism. Pearl Harbor in the view of American is a Romance. Japanese is portrayed as the evil ones and the dropping of the atomic bomb announces the victory of America over Japan. This mode of emplotment leads to an optimistic view of history.

The second mode is tragedy. In this mode, the hero faces difficulties yet not like romance fails to overcome the problem. But during the narration of the story, audience learns many things through the hero’s fall.

The third mode is comedy. In comedy, conflict occurs between the players and at the end they reconcile and live happily ever after. This conflict sometimes seems very hideous and unsolvable yet at the end it is solved and everyone is happy.

The fourth mode is satire. In satire the bad always wins. There are problems and the problem is solved yet nothing really happens. No changes occur drastically and nothing is gained nor learned.

Going back to five levels of narration process, the fourth level is the motive argument which White calls it the mode of formal argument. After reading the narration which was for example a comedy, historian can stop and argue about the emplotment of the history or the interpretation of the history itself. There are four forms of argumentation and they are formism, organiscist, mechanist, and contextualist.

The fifth and the last level of narration process is the motive ideological implication. White suggests that every ideology has some kind of history involved in it. For example when we talk about the WWII as a comedy then the ideology is emphasizing that it was just laughable and everything went perfectly fine.

To conclude the philosophy of White’s history, in my opinion, White has much similarity when it comes to history as a story with Danto. But I think White took a more creative approach in order to make the readers of the history excited.

Every historical events cannot fit into the philosophy of White therefore I somewhat disagree if someone says that White’s philosophy is the ultimate tool to interpret the history. But I think as I’ve stated in the beginning of this paper, that it is truly interesting to see how one event in history can actually be interpreted as a romance, tragedy, comedy, and satire.

White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University.
Wikipedia [Website]. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org.

William McNeill philosophy of history position paper (Plagues and peoples)

Plagues and peoples

While I was reading William McNeill’s masterpiece “Plagues and peoples,” I was wondering why McNeill wrote such a book and why people think of him as one of “the great historian.” It is probably because my understanding is very much limited when it comes to the biological presentation of data.

The introduction to his book talked about the diseases that killed the Aztecs which brought a massive decline to the Aztec empire. And I again wondered “why would a historian be so much into diseases and medical related events?” Because I thought that observing the plagues, epidemic and viruses isn’t a job for a historian but rather a job for a doctor or pharmacists who develop new vaccinations for people suffering from viruses and diseases.

But as I went deeper into his philosophy, I couldn’t say that I have totally understood why McNeill is a historian rather than a doctor or a pharmacist, I understood some of the factors that McNeill was emphasizing through the diseases and plagues that have occurred in time.

Historians tend to ignore something that is not explainable. The cause of the disease is something that is hard to explain sometimes because these events those historians are referring to sometimes goes beyond thousands of years.

But in case of McNeill, he directly relates the disease and plagues with human history. He uses terms like epidemic, micro parasitism, macro parasitism, mutualism which is biological terms rather than historical terms. Yet these terms are truly important terms that needs clear definition for us to understand what McNeill is trying to say through his philosophy.

First of all I would like to define the word micro parasitism. Micro parasitism according to McNeill means tiny infectious organisms that live inside us that are parasites on us. We probably have incredible amount of parasites living inside our stomach that are infectious but we don’t notice this parasites. We are feeding them while eating and drinking but we know that they are not highly infectious because we don’t feel the pain even though those parasites are living inside us. If we do feel the pain then it means that now, we know that there’s a parasite, a highly infectious one which will make us sick.

The second word that is truly important to understand the key concepts of McNeill is the word macro parasitism. Macro parasitism is parasites that are visible. That is not inside our body but outside the body. For example, tiger or shark is a macro parasite. They bite us and eat us. But in contrary, human also can be or should I say human is already a macro parasites feeding their bellies by killing other animals.

The history of hunting is an example of macro parasitism. Cannibalism that has occurred long time ago well I heard that some tribes in Africa still has these things happening, is also a form of macro parasitism.

This concept of parasitism according to McNeill can lead to two kinds of diseases, the endemic and epidemic. In order for macro parasites to survive they should rely on the host. But when the macro parasite kills the host, then the parasite also dies because of the lack of food supply. That is why macro parasite needs an equilibrium which is a balance for the macro parasite to benefit from the host while not totally killing the host.

But when the macro parasites doesn’t maintain this equilibrium and goes out of control killing everything then it becomes an epidemic. But if it is not epidemic then the parasite relationship is endemic which is fairly stable and to some extent mutually satisfactory relationship.

To conclude all that was said, I would say that McNeill’s view of history according to parasitism is reasonable. Kings of old ages, leaders like Adolph Hitler used their power and authority to get everything that they could from the people under them or should I say weaker than them. But in contrast, human life according to my understanding is more of an endemic relationship where both benefits not perfectly equal yet mutual.




McNeill, W.H. (1998). Plagues and peoples. New York: Anchor Books

William McNeill philosophy of history monograph (The Black Death)

The Black Death

While I was thinking of the topic to write about, I was thinking of the largest disastrous plague of mankind. Few years ago, SARS was a big problem in China and in some other Asian countries. I saw videos saying that SARS would take many lives away like the great plague that I’m going to mention in this paper, the Black Death.

According to the professionals, plague is caused by bacterial infection found in rodents; this includes rats, rabbits, and etc., and fleas. When this infects humans, then the plagues outbreaks and the rapid killing happens.

Black Death killed 25 million people in the late 1340s. In London, 1 out of 5 residents suffered the tragic Black Death. Total number who has suffered the plague reaches the estimated number of 75 million people. It is said that the Black Death has originated in central Asia or India, spreading to European countries.

The effects of the Black Death were devastating. Starting from the decline in the population, it changed church, arts, and even music in Europe. Declination of the population meant economic crisis. Because as the population decreased, there were less people to pay tax.

Another problem that had occurred due to the declination of the population was that no one really went to church. Although some believed that their god could save them from the Black Death, others abandoned the church. This abandonment brought the change in European Art. Sculptures with worms and snails munching on the diseased, the painting of the people socializing with the skeletons shows a clear image that the artists of the day got heavily effected by the plague, painting and making hopeless and sad paintings and sculptures.

This is the type of history that William H. McNeill is focusing on. The plague occurred yet we don’t know the exact spot of where it happened and why it happened but surely this plague brought about something that was so devastating and horrible effect that couldn’t be ignored in history.

Plague, micro and macro parasitism, epidemic and endemic, are the things that McNeill is really interested in as a historian. He is a naturalist and no matter what other historians say, McNeill believes as a naturalist that when plague hits the people, the effect is so devastating that other historians theory will no longer last. The plague will be the only thing left behind and the effects and changes due to the plague.



The effect of Black Death
Retrieved on October 16, 2008
From http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/Europe.html

Hayden White philosophy of history monograph (4 emplotments)

4 Emplotments

In this monograph, I would talk about 4 emplotments of Hayden White. Well I should say that I would write 1 story in 4 different emplotments to show the difference of the philosophy of White about narration process. Before I begin, I would like to state these four types of emplotments which are romance, tragedy, comedy and satire.

Now I would like to begin with a brief explanation of event that I will place in four different types of emplotment. This event is the assassination of the prime minister of Japan on 1909 during the Japanese occupation of Korea, by a Korean patriot named An Jung Geun.

An’s assassination succeeds yet he was tried and was ordered to be executed by the Japanese government.

Romance

On 1909 to the way of Manchuria where Japanese were trying to expand their territory west, the prime minister of Japan, Ito Hirobumi got off the train to greet the people in Manchuria. Manchuria wasn’t obviously a part of Korea but nowadays China.

An Jung Geun who was a faithful believer of Catholicism knew and had a strong belief that God has placed the life of the prime minister of Japan in his hands.

An and his fellow patriots before the assassination plan took place, had a conference where they had promised to make Korea an independent nation. By cutting their fingers, they signed the paper of agreement with their blood, to fight for the independence.

When Prime Minister Ito got out of the train, the crowd was cheering and some waving Japanese flags. While this was happening, An got his gun from his jacket and aimed straight for he had only one shot to blow before the Japanese soldiers captured him.

He finally took the blow and the prime minister fell on ground. An was captured and while he was, he got the Korean national flag that he so tightly kept in his bosoms and waved it in front of the crowd shouting the independence of Korea.

An was sentenced to death for killing the prime minister of Japan but this brought a big sign of possibility and optimistic view to Korean patriots who wasn’t succeeding. An’s death was very miserable. We still don’t know where his body is buried or if it is actually buried. But the Korean nation recognized him as one of the most important patriot who had risked his life for his country. Even though it seems like he died a shameful death, it wasn’t shameful at all but in fact it should be very honorable and praiseful death for the Koreans.

Tragedy

An succeeded to assassinate the prime minister but was that truly the main solution for the problem? Before we ask ourselves about what the solution was, I believe that we should first look at the problem itself. The problem was the nation of Korea under the Japanese occupation. Korean patriots wanted independence and more specifically freedom.

Although the assassination brought some optimistic viewpoint toward Korean patriots who risked their lives for the independence, saying that the act of patriotism can actually succeed. But in the other hand, the hero who is in this case An Jung Guen suffers a tragic death without achieving his main goal of independence.

Comedy

For the emplotment of comedy, I decided to go broader in order for the readers to understand why this event can be a comedy. Koreans were under the imperialism of Japanese for many years. The assassination of the prime minister of Japan had a great impact stirring up nationalism in Korea but in the other hand Korea wasn’t an independent nation. And the independence itself came 35 years after the assassination of prime minister of Japan had occurred. There were struggles between the nation of Korea and Japan but for 35 years it was just like old times.

Satire

The death of one of the greatest Korean patriot is already something that is very tragic. Japanese military forces succeeded to capture him and the Japanese trial court sentenced him to death. The evil won and even though the prime minister of Japan was shot and assassinated, the basic elements didn’t change and Japan still had the power over Korea for 35 years.


An Jung geun. Retrieved on October 10, 2008
From http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/content.cfm/hero

White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University.
Wikipedia [Website]. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org.

Fernand Braudel philosophy of history position paper (The three time span of History)

The three time span of History

When it comes to history, I believe that structure is truly important factor to have thorough understanding of the events of the past. Narrative in history cannot be a factor that can be denied for its importance but for Fernand Braudel, history is more than a story in fact he is more concerned on the culture, the institutions, and the practices of the past.

According to Braudel, there is something called a social time span of historical analysis in relation to social development. This social time span is categorized into three types.

The first type is called the history of event and Braudel calls it microhistory. This type of time span is fairly obvious. It talks about the events that have occurred such as war, revolution, riot and etc. This time span also includes famous figures who were involved in the events. For instance when we talk about the propaganda movement, famous figure who is in this case Joes Rizal, is considered in the time span of the history of event.

The second type is called the conjuncture. This type of history not like the history of event for it covers 20 to 50 years. This type of history includes inflation, business cycle and economical data of the time period.

Finally the third type is called the history of Longue duree meaning long duration. This is the most important part of Braudel’s philosophy of history probably because it is long therefore it should be valued more than other short events or the conjuncture that happens in every 20 to 50 years.

The time span of Longue duree expands more that 600 to 700 years. And a good example is the rising of a civilization. For a civilization to rise, long period of time should flow. And this takes long duration. Therefore it should be valued more than those histories that happens in short amount of time.

I agree with Braudel’s philosophy of history because history is all about the collected data of the past. And the more it is interpreted while being connected, the more it should be valued as a better interpretation of history for its broadness and richness of sources.

Definition:

Structuralism
1. A method of analyzing phenomena, as in anthropology, linguistics, psychology, or literature, chiefly characterized by contrasting the elemental structures of the phenomena in a system of binary opposition.
2. A school that advocates and employs such a method. (AHD)



Braudel, F. (1982). On history. (S. Matthews, Trans.).
University of Chicago. (Original work published 1969).

Fernand Braudel philosophy of history monograph (The history of toilet)

The history of toilet

When I was thinking of what to write about Braudel’s philosophy of history about the Longue duree which means long duration, I knew that there were some interesting topics to discuss about.

The time span of Longue duree covers not just decades but century and for Braudel, this time span is the most important time span compared to other time spans. It’s probably because Longue duree shows us and can manipulate our minds into something that is way broader than what we see in other time spans because it is so much longer than them.

The history of toilet was the idea that came into my mind when I was thinking of materials and things that have been over hundreds of years. Some might argue that the flush toilet was just invented like hundred years ago therefore toilet usage isn’t a history that should be classified as Longue duree, but I’m not specifically talking about the flush toilet but the toilet itself and how it developed over centuries.

We all know that around 3rd century B.C., Romans had an advanced bathing system. I remember reading about the Roman nobles who had their own spa inside there house. So what I’m trying to emphasize here is that the usage of toilet is something that goes way beyond the time span of what we have thought of.

During 2500 BC, the people of Harappa in India used water borne toilets which was linked to each houses. Toilets were also used in ancient Egypt and China. The first flush toilet was invented in 1596 by a man named John Harrington. And this proves to us that flush toilet is also valued as the history of Longue duree elapsing over 4 centuries of history.

The development of toilet didn’t stop by its invention. After the invention of flush toilet, First valve-type flush toiled was introduced in 1738 by J.F. Brondel. On 1885 a guy named Thomas Twyford revolutionized the toilet business in 1885 inventing the first trapless toilet in a one-piece, all in Chinese design. And later on as we all know the big companies such as Kohler, TOTO, and American Standard, globalize the usage of same toilet and bathroom system all around the world.

It is truly interesting to know the history of something that we are so familiar of, dates back to the time of B.C. There are many things around us that we don’t really pay attention to it yet contains a history that is unimaginably broad. For example chopsticks or the usage of comb is something that goes hundreds and hundreds of years, probably thousand years of history.

This is the history of Longue duree. It has lasted for many years and some of them can be as specific as a chop stick while some can be as broad as the western civilization. Because the time span of Longue duree can be used to interpret the history of any material or culture that lasted more than a century.


The history of toilet. Retrieved on October 10, 2008
From http://www.pickbrains.com/articles/toilet

Arthur Danto philosophy of history position paper (The wise story teller)

The wise story teller

First of all, I would like to state the fact that I love narrative history. While growing up, I’ve heard many different narrative histories from my parents and historians whom I respect. The reason that I got really interested in studying the history was actually because these narrative stories inspired me and made me desire more about the past events that has really happened.

The reason that I stated the fact that I love narratives is because Arthur C. Danto has written a book that is called “Narration and knowledge.” Narration according to AC Danto wasn’t just a fairytale or other imaginary stories but it was based on the belief of science and other important factors that makes us believe that history is truly important tool that helps us know what has happened.

According to Danto’s theory, history can be subdivided into three major categories. The first are the pragmatic issues such as racism, slavery, sexual discrimination and other moralistic issues that surrounds us. Pragmatic issues are also ideological. Second is the history that is organized around Freudian history and finally the last type of history is the history that is organized around consequential consideration which deals with the conclusion the outcome of an event.

Each sentence of the narrative refers to two events. But always, the latter describes the first event that took place. For instance the Gomburza incident brought the Philippine nationalism to spread. The dying priests probably couldn’t even imagine that their death was the starting point of the rise of the Philippine nationalism. But this rise of the nationalism explains the importance of the Gomburza incident and the death of innocent liberal Indio priests in the Philippines.

In narrating a history, Danto uses the term project verbs. Project verb is used to describe history that is not discrete. What I mean by discrete event is for instance walking or running. This could be a discrete event because it has happened in a specific space and time. Events like war that lasted for several years, revolution and growth that took place for hundreds of bloody warfare isn’t a discrete event. This is called the temporal structures according to Danto. It is truly crucial to use project verb in order to narrate stories in a more precise and accurate manners.

Danto also argues about the relativity of historical knowledge. Historians argue the relativity of history and that history cannot provide any source of reasonable knowledge. And Danto responds to these arguments stating three mistaken charges of relativism.

The first error is the positivism viewpoint. Positivist says that the statement about the past is meaningless because it can’t be verified. But the problem is that all our experience is of the past. And for this cause, positivism viewpoint can’t be a valid argument rather it is just an error that could be ignored.

The second error is the skeptical arguments that were offered by Bertand Russell. He tried to prove through his view point that history in fact is just a bunk. He proposes the idea that the world is created five minutes ago and everything in relation to it. All the documents of the past was also created five minutes ago therefore the history would be a bunk because there wasn’t any past.

The argument against the skepticism is defended by Danto through saying that Russell is not arguing about the historical skepticism but the skepticism itself. Danto is saying that skepticism might work and it has been working for some cases but not in historic grounds.

The last argument states that history is relative because it is biased. But Danto argues that history is in fact a narrative and the idea of ideal chronicle which is to say that everything is recorded but if historians doesn’t arrange this events that has occurred in a narrative way, then nothing could be known and nothing could be said.

I believe that narrative history in the sense of AC Danto is truly important for us historians to engage more in history. The narration process of AC Danto has three steps. Beginning, middle, and the end and this are in comparison to Hegel’s philosophy of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Of course the accuracy should be questioned because every human being has their subjective view towards history and they might distort the history according to their likes and dislikes.

I agree with AC Danto’s theory because it truly help me to gain more insights about the importance of narrative history and logicality that lies underneath the surface of history.



Danto, A.C. (1985). Narration and knowledge. Columbia University.

Arthur Danto philosophy of history monograph (Gomburza)

Gomburza

Recently in my history class, I learned about the rise of nationalism in the Philippines. The professor taught us that the rise of Philippine nationalism started from the Gomburza incident.

During the time period of Spanish colonization of the Philippines, Indios (nowadays Filipinos) didn’t have much freedom of occupation. Because for example when Spanish needed an architect, they will look for Spanish architect no matter how educated and good the Indio was.

In this kind of fragile time period, the only occupation that could gain respect by both Spanish and Indios was to become a priest. When a person becomes a priest, then normally people think of them as a sacred being showing respect to them. I can’t say that all the priests didn’t receive the call of God to become a priest because if I say that all the priests wanted the respect of both Spanish and the Indios, then I would be over generalizing.

Going back to the fragile situation between Spanish and Indios, the Gomburza incident occurred. Gomburza is actually an acronym denoting the surnames of the indio priests, Mariano Gómez, José Apolonio Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora. These three priests were executed by Spanish authority with the charges of subversion arising from the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

The execution took place inside the Catholic temple and Indios were seeing these priests being brutally executed by Spanish colonizers. This incident was enough for the Philippine nationalism to rise against the cruel and brutal authority of Spanish colonizers.

Through this Gomburza incident, many national heroes in the Philippines like Joes Rizal who later on was on the center spot of Propaganda Movement that failed to convince the King of Spain to grant Indios the same rights of being Spanish citizens.

Even though this incident didn’t bring the end to the Spanish colonization, I believe that it is alright to say that this incident was enough to agitate the Indios giving birth to the Philippine nationalism.


Jennifer R.C. (1998). GOMBURZA.
Reluctant martyrs started it all. Retrieved October 9, 2008,
From http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/gomburza.html

Carl Hempel philosophy of history position paper (History + Science)

History + Science

Obviously, history is a totally different subject with science. Different view points are shared and different experiments and laws are applied. But does it mean that there isn’t any interrelationship between these two very different looking subjects?

Carl G. Hempel’s view of history is more like a scientists approach to certain kind of events in history. Hempel believes that there is a certain law that is behind every events of history and when these laws are not defined clearly, then it is to him a pseudo explanation.

For example, the reason that President Abraham Lincoln fought the civil war was the call of God is a pseudo explanation to Hempel. The call from God can’t be explained by scientific experimentation.

Valid explanation in basis of scientific experimentation according to Hempel is called “the General laws.” And these valid explanations should go through certain processes in order to be “valid” according to Hempel.

In every general law or universal hypothesis, there is the presence of C and E. C in this case stands for “cause” and E for the “effect.” Hempel’s theory is somewhat of a combination of science and mathematics in order to understand the specific law that lies underneath an event of a history.

A truly scientific explanation should always be capable for objective test. First method is the initial condition. This means that this initial condition should be and can be empirically verified.

There should be some valid explanations and evidence to support the event that has occurred in the history. For example when American Revolution happened, there should be some evidences that lead to this war against British Parliament. The reason for American Revolution according to historians wasn’t just because the Americans didn’t have representatives in Great Britain. But the ultimate reason is that Britain limited the economic freedom of rich American colonizers, the House of Burgesses, through stamp act, navigation act, and other acts.

This explains the American Revolution better that just saying that American Revolution was the fight of freedom. Freedom is not seen. It is something that is vague. Therefore it is not a scientific explanation, its pseudo explanation.

The second method is to be tested by universal hypothesis. It’s obvious that Hempel is really attracted to science when he is explaining history because he uses the word “hypothesis” which in scientific term means educated guess.

Universal hypothesis is hypothesis that can be verified all over the world. For instance, the falling of an apple is universal hypothesis. We strongly believe that the apple will fall down from the tree in France and also in other countries. We believe that the apple will fall rather than being uplifted again to the sky. The law of gravitational force is a universal hypothesis in some sense.

If an event is able to pass both initial conditions, then there is the last type of method to verify if an event in the history is general law that can be scientifically explained or a vague pseudo explanation that is no good in Hempel’s view. And this method is to defend against the contradiction.

When the explanation is questioned after the law was proposed in a certain event, then the law formulator who has passed both initial conditions, should be capable of answering the contradicting arguments.

My position in Hempel’s theory is neutral. It’s hard to disagree his method because there are too many verification factors that make the law in history. But I believe that history is unique in some sense. Classifying everything that is unexplainable pseudo explanation doesn’t make much sense to me.

I think it is somewhat a lame excuse for Hempel when he says that history is a soft science. It is not totally scientific because history can’t be totally explained by science that is why he calls it a soft science.

Hempel, C.G. (1942). The function of general laws in history.
In The Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35-48.

Carl Hempel philosophy of history monograph (The Korean War)

The Cause & Effect of the Korean War

Personally, I had a truly hard time dealing with Hempel’s philosophy of history because I’m neither a mathematician nor a scientist and it takes both skills of science and math in order to understand the concept of Carl Hempel.

I have briefly discussed about my position and what Hempel is emphasizing through his theory by my position paper so here, I would like to apply the method of Hempel and in order to do so, I believe that we should clarify some symbols.

C for Hempel is cause. E stands for Effect. C is the group 1 and the general law that derives the effect is group 2. That means that E itself should flow from group 1 to group 2 and it should also be connected with the outcome of C and the general law.

C1 = Cause number 1
C2 = Cause number 2
C3 = Cause number 3
Arrows = general law
E = Effect

My topic for this paper is the cause and effect of Korean War of 1950. Effect of Korean War was for North and South Korea to split into half. It also had casualties that are estimated but historians until this day doesn’t know the exact number. The effect of the war also made South Korea one of the main technologically important countries in the world while making North Korea one of the poorest nations in the world.

My C1 is difference of regime between North and South Korea. C2 is communist victory in China and C3 is different leaders elected and boycott of President Seungman Rhee.

General Law that is behind this Korean War itself I believe has some similarities that are shared with Vietnam War so I have read some articles about the Vietnam War and the general law that is behind both of this war. In the case of Vietnam War, America had to protect the spread of communism in Asia. If the communism spreads all over the weak nations of Asia then America will suffer much of its consequences as a capitalist nation.

Same law is applied to the Korean War of 1950. The war was between the different regime of North which was pro communism and South which was pro capitalism. But the effects differed from these two wars. I believe that different outcome of these two wars is not because the general law is wrong but the situation was different therefore the outcome itself can vary.

So to sum up with everything that has been said, C1 the different regime, C2 communist victory in China, and C3 election that wasn’t accepted had a general law which was the spread of communism and capitalism trying to spread the domino effect of communism. The effect of the Korean War protected South Korea to become a wealthy capitalist nation while leaving North Korea to become a poorest communist nation.

Prabhakar Pillai (2008) The cause and effect of the Korean war.

Andrew J. Rotter (1999) The cause of Vietnam war.
Retrieved on Oct. 16, 2008
from http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

R.G. Collingwood philosophy of history position paper

Inside Out

The theory of R.G. Collingwood is very simple yet a powerful tool/way to interpret history. The interpretation being based on inside which is our imagination; putting ourselves on the shoes of our ancestor with the basis of facts, and looking at the outside of the phenomenon or the case by the given records and facts that are naturalistic.

Naturalistic means the physical manifestations that can be seen by others. Speaking in simpler sense, naturalistic can be walking, gestures, and things that are shown through our physical motions. But the inside has do deal with things that are not shown by bare eyes.

The inside deals with rational thought that’s behind an event. When a certain event occurs such as robbery, detectives and polices sees the outside or the physical appearance of what happened in the spot of crime but at the same time thinks about the possibilities of what could have happened in the place and who was the one who have committed the crime.

This rational thought in Collingwood’s term is a priori imagination. When we try to reenact some past experience, we need a priori imagination. This imagination helps us understand and fills the gap of what has happened. For example when some incidents occur and when there’s a huge missing gap that should be filled with accuracy, a priori imagination can help fill the gap and say the things that might have happened. Priori imagination serves not only as a gap filler but also provides us a continuous narrative of the incident.

The importance of inside according to Collingwood is way more than what we think. According to Collingwood, inside is basically everything when he talks about history. The reason that he says this is because natural events have no inside. And without inside, nothing can be clearly understood or be classified as a history proper.

I think there’s both positive and negative side of this inside and outside theory by Collingwood. I strongly agree with the idea that a priori imagination can help immensely when interpreting the history. It is some kind of a hypothesis or an educated guess that should made in order for the historians to understand what happened.

But the danger of a priori imagination is that when an individual looks at history as his very own perspective, then many things can be misinterpreted and mislead other people especially if the individual is a famous historian or an author.

For this case, I would like to talk about the case of “Da vinci code.” The author claims that the book is based on facts. But I think this is the case of a priori imagination being too broad, misled many Christians into some situations that we can’t just laugh at.

Imagination is a gift of God. We have the choice to use it in a nicest manner or the worst manner. We might imagine things that haven’t happened yet be mad about it for ages until the truth is revealed. I just hope that as a scholar of history, historians would be careful of what they have thought upon before they announce it out loud to the whole world.

I think the theory of Evolution is a good example for this. When Charles Darwin discovered the theory of Evolution, he announced it to the whole world about what he has discovered. But for ages and ages, humanity has not seen any sign of evolving animals or other living things until now. This disproves Darwin’s scientific/rational guess.

Once again to sum up all of my positions about Collingwood’s theory, I would like to say that imagination is the gift of God and in order to interpret history, it is a tool that is needed the most. But when we misuse this a priori imagination, we might mislead ourselves, and mislead others as well. And as historians, I believe that it should be a must to always rely on the accurate facts and be careful of what they have in mind.



Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. 205-334 .

R.G. Collingwood philosophy of history monograph

The Warlord

I thought it was interesting to interpret history with a priori imagination the theory of R.G. Collingwood. Trying to use my priori imagination to the given facts of history, may have given some inaccurate conclusions. But according to Collingwood, history is all about the inside and in order to know the inside and fill the gap, we should use our rational thought.

I have decided to write about a famous general in the history of Korea, Gyebaek. His courage and his loyalty to his country are well known among Koreans. The most famous story that is told about him is that he killed his family with his own sword. (wikipedia) And I believe that through my rational thoughts, somehow the gap would be filled and the story will flow smoothly.

Long time ago when Korea was subdivided into three nations, Goguryeo, Baekjae, and Silla, the nation was under turmoil. Each nation desired to expand their territory and in order for them to do so, they had to make a brutal choice. (wikipedia)
To fight, to kill, and to conquer


After the war has broken between Baekjae and Silla, Goguryeo joined force with Baekjae to attack the massive force of angry warriors of Silla
led by General Kim Yu shin. (wikipedia)

Eventually, the joined force of Baekjae and Silla started to be driven back when
Silla got aid from China.
Gyebaek the Commander of Chief in Baekjae knew that Baekjae was
outnumbered by the joined force or Silla and China. (wikipedia)

Knowing that his forces couldn’t stand longer against the massive force of Silla,
Gyebaek went back to his house.
His family has gathered to know what was going on
And how the war is going to end.
They were scared after being pushed around by the soldiers of Silla.
The family knew that the battle would end soon
Baekjae would no longer be on the map.

Gyebaek with deep sorrow could hardly open his mouth.
His family wasn’t expecting so much of the words that would come out from his mouth.
Finally Gyebaek opened his mouth and said that Silla is going to win the battle
And everyone will die.

These were the word that he said.
“I would rather die than be a slave of the enemy."
(wikipedia)

And he draws his sword and said his last words to his family.
“See you again in sky…”

He started to kill his children first before he killed his wife. The children ran for their lives but were killed by the hands of their own father.
Seeing the children being slaughtered by her husband, she gives up her life
Probably, he says that he is sorry.
Promising her that they will meet again in a better place.

The floor was soaked with blood as he walked out of the house.
Probably, tears were falling down from his eyes but he was hiding it for he was the general who is supposed to demonstrate courage to his fellow soldiers.

The reason that he killed his family is to prevent them from falling into
The soldiers of Silla.
(wikipedia)
What could have happened if the soldiers knew that they were the family members of Baekjae’s commander of chief?

Gyebaek wasn’t feeling well.
The screaming of his children’s voice was still in his ears.
But he had no time for compassion.
He had no time to think about his dead family anymore.
The war was on.
The last battle to defend Baekjae.

If they win, they succeed to defend Baekjae from falling.
If they don’t then everything is over.
The soldiers also knew that this battle was the most important battle of their lives.

The king of Baekjae gave up his own nation
And was running for his life.
(wikipedia)
Every single soldier thought of running for their lives
For the fight was meaningless. They would all die.
Gyebaek also knew that he and his fellow man will fall
But he wasn’t a coward.
He said that he would never back down.
He said that he would rather die that backing out.

“I would rather die”
(wikipedia)

One fine day of 660 BC,
The battle broke out between the force of Silla led by General Kim Yu shin and the force of Baekjae led by General Gyebaek.
(wikipedia)

The battle was like the battle of David and Goliath.
Silla had 10 times the soldier of Baekjae.
But Baekjae wasn’t easily defeated.

Because before the war has begun,
Gyebaek told them that when they back out,
Then they would all die in Gyebaek’s hands.

Gyebaek and his man risked their lives in order to protect the country
While Kim Yu shin’s man wasn’t that eager to fight
Because they have underestimated the Baekjae soldiers.
(wikipedia)

First, it seemed like Gyebaek was winning the battle.
There was no way that Kim Yu shin and his man can defeat
The angry and furious soldiers of Gyebaek.
(wikipedia)

Kim Yu shin started to think of the ways to defeat Gyebaek and conquer Baekjae.
Because no matter how many man he had, he would loose to the high spirited/morale soldiers of Gyebaek.

When he was thinking, one of the elite youth soldiers of Silla named “Hwarang”
Drove his horse and charged all alone against the force of Gyebaek.
The first Hwarang who bravely charged against thousands of Gyebaek’s soldiers died.
(wikipedia)

The morale of Kim Yu shin’s soldiers began to rise up while seeing a 16 years old Hwarang charging against the enemy and laying his life for his own country.

Gyebaek had no choice but to see his fellow man being crushed by the massive force of General Kim Yushin.
He was shot by arrows.
The arrows speared through his flesh.
It was truly excruciating for a human to stand the pain.
But he wasn’t ashamed of his defeat.
He was happy that he could die for his own country.
Probably thinking that
Soon he will meet his family
In a better place.



Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. 205-334.

Gyebaek. Retrieved on Sept. 15, 2008
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyebaek

Arnold Toynbee Challenge and Response position paper

The challenge and response

In order to create a new civilization, the basic need is to have challenges and responses. These challenges classified by Arnold Toynbee are: a hard environment; a new environment; blows which is characterized by military defeat; pressures; and penalization. (Toynbee 1935~1948)

Challenges create civilization by forcing the people into tremendous difficulties which leaves them no choice but to form a civilization. For instance, we can take the 4 river basin civilizations as an example of this challenge.

The term for this civilization is the “hydraulic civilizations.” Upon making or establishing of this civilization, there are certain physical challenges/difficulties that humans encounter. These challenges are flood, and recuperating marshy swamp lands into a more useful substance in order for the civilization to emerge.

Another challenge that Arnold Toynbee imposes is the blows. An example of blows is military defeat. Through these defeats, the nation in crisis might establish a civilization in order to protect themselves from the enemy that keeps on irritating/disturbing their lives.

Pressure and penalization can also be a challenge. When a group of people are penalized by their superior nations or other superior group of people, the inferior tends to develop a new civilization in the time of penalization and somewhat of a crisis.

When America was colonized by the British people, the settlers/colonizers that set foot on American soil had no representatives. For this cause, British imposed acts like the navigation act, stamp act, and many other harsh acts that bounded the colonizers to their authority.

The result of these harsh treatments by their motherland was the American Revolution. When penalized and ill-treated by the superior group, the challenge was on and the challenge was met with a response called the American Revolution.

But some responses to the challenges results in an underdevelopment. Harsh environment and surrounding which is a physical challenge sometimes create a civilization but they can also result in stagnation. The example of this proposed by Toynbee is the Eskimos.

In other hand, when the challenge is too light and too easy such as the people living in the tropical, tends to become third world country because they have no reasons to fight against an excruciating challenge that Eskimos had to respond to in order for them to survive. Tropical countries are nearly like paradise and this country has the tendencies to backslide because the citizens of these countries are not faced with the challenges so they become very lazy and incompetent.

The growth of the civilization happens when successful responses come from the creative individuals. These creative individuals withdraw from the society for enlightenment and returns to the society to solve spiritual riddles, philosophical riddle and etc. And through these problems being solved by creative individuals, the civilization grows.

But in contrast to this growth that was brought about by the creative individuals, the creative individuals who brought the growth to civilization also brought declination and the breakdown of the civilization.

These breakdown happens when these creative individuals cooperates with the society and becomes a dominant minority stopping to be creative. Since there is no presence of creativity involved, there is no enhancement or the growth of civilization but a decline or a breakdown.

When this first breakdown happens, the majority of the society under the dominant minority withdraws from the dominant minority. And of course the withdrawal of the majority results in a decline of social unity. But the worst part is that this breakdown is not the end of crisis but only a beginning of disintegration.

In disintegration, society split into three crucial elements. The first is the dominant minority and the second is the disaffected community which is to say that the majority of the society no longer follows the dominant minorities. And finally the third is the external proletariat.

The only way to stop disintegration when it is already begun is to petrify the society. This is called the petrification in Toynbee’s term. When a society becomes pertrified as hard as a rock, then it will eventually stop disintegration to occur. But the downside of this petrification is that there is no longer any development of the society because it is strongly bounded, stuck, and petrified.

As a process of disintegration, Universal state emerges. Universal state eventually falls but there are certain advantages like the communication, roads, legal system which facilitates the spread of higher religions. These higher religions results in universal churches and Toynbee thought that these churches keeps civilization alive while it evolves into one manifestation to other.

“But the idea that churches act as chrysalises, keeping civilization alive as it evolves from one manifestation into the next, is not the entire truth either, he writes. Toynbee argues that, rather than religion being a by-product of civilization, the whole purpose of a civilization is to provide an opportunity for one of the higher religions.” (Toynbee, 1935~1948)

The idea of the challenge and response was a truly fundamental but important factor to know how civilization emerged. But I disagree with total disintegration for I believe that there can always be creative individuals and there is always a creative individual who can bring growth to the civilization rather than declination and disintegration because of the lack of these minorities.

I also disagree with the golden mean of challenge because I think this gives Arnold Toynbee an excuse when arguments arise about his theory. The idea of petrification also gives Toynbee an excuse because when argument arises about some civilizations that cannot be categorized by his theory, then Toynbee can simply just say that the civilization is petrified or that the challenge is not a golden mean therefore the civilization couldn’t be established.


Toynbee, A. J. (1935-1948). A study of history (Vol. 1). London: Oxford University.

Arnold Toynbee philosophy of history monograph

3.1

There is a saying that when a rat is on the corner, then the rat will bite and fight against the cat. The challenge and response by Arnold J. Toynbee is actually similar with the idea of rat responding to the challenge of cat by biting the cat. Penalization of a superior country is a challenge to the country under it.
Japanese occupation of Korea (1910~1945) was a great challenge to Koreans. Japanese was very cruel to Koreans. The history tells us that Japanese banned Koreans to speak Korean and they also changed the name of Koreans into Japanese. The reason that I say this is cruel is because Koreans were heavily affected by Confucianism beliefs. Changing of names into Japanese was an unimaginable disgrace to the ancestors.

In times of immense penalization and pressure from the Japanese, Koreans responded by Three-one movement or March first movement.

“The March First Movement, or Samil Movement, was one of the earliest displays of Korean independence movements during the Japanese occupation of Korea.” (wikipedia)

On the center of this movement was a creative individual who’s name is “Yu kwan soon.” Born in March 15 1904, she was only 15 when she stood firm in the midst of this massive demonstration. Being educated in Ehwa School which was established by Methodist missionaries in Korea, she had deep faith in God and believed that Korea should gain independence over the suppression of Japanese.

March First movement started at 2 P.M. on March 1, 1919. Korean nationalists waving Korean flags shouted/proclaimed the independence of Korea. The leaders of this movement sent a document of independence to Japanese Governor General.

“We herewith proclaim the independence of Korea and the liberty of the Korean people. We tell it to the world in witness of the equality of all nations and we pass it on to our posterity as their inherent right.
We make this proclamation, having back of us 5,000 year of history, and 20,000,000 of a united loyal people. We take this step to insure to our children for all time to come, personal liberty in accord with the awakening consciousness of this new era. This is the clear leading of God, the moving principle of the present age, the whole human race's just claim. It is something that cannot be stamped out, or stifled, or gagged, or suppressed by any means.” (wikipedia)

These were the words that were sent to Japanese Governor General and guess what happened next. Japanese police started to open fire at the civilians who were involved in the movement. 7,000 killed and 46,303 were arrested. Yu kwan soon was one of the 46 thousand that got arrested.

“She was tried and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment at Seodaemun Prison. She continued to protest for the independence of Korea, for which she received harsh beatings and torture. She didn’t submit to Japanese authority and after receiving torture she died in prison on October 12, 1920. Her last words were “Japan shall fall.”

The Japanese prison initially refused to release her body, but eventually and reluctantly the prison released her body to Fry and Walter, principals of Ehwa Women School and only after Fry and Walter threatened to expose this atrocity to the world.

Her body was reported to have been cut into pieces. The dismembered body was contained inside the oil crate which was supposed to be returned to Saucony Vacuum Company. The Japanese Authorities did so as retaliation against the threat from Ehwa School. She was given a national burial in 1962.” (wikipedia)

Even though the response to the penalization ended up with the death of a charismatic leader, this 15 years old girl was creative enough to bring the revolt into action. Nowadays, March 1 is the national holiday of Korea. In this day we remember the courage and patriotism of Yu kwan soon and other nationalists who fought for the independence of Korea.



March 1st Movement. Retrieved on Sept. 13, 2008
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1st_Movement

Toynbee, A. J. (1935-1948). A study of history (Vol. 1). London: Oxford University

Yu Gwansun. Retrieved on Sept. 13, 2008
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Gwan-sun

Max Weber philosophy of history position paper

Legitimate Domination

I disagree with the idea of legitimate domination. The reason is because in order for a pure legitimate domination to occur, every human should willingly accept the authority above them without any rights of their own. Human beings tend to be selfish enough to just look after themselves. This nature of selfishness in my opinion stops the pure legitimate domination to happen.

There are three grounds to legitimate domination that Max Weber introduces in his theory. The first ground is the rational ground. In my opinion, rational ground is a ground that is controlled by legality. What I mean by this is that the rational ground enacts the law and the law must be obeyed no matter what happens. Even the judges of the Supreme Court have the duty and responsibilities to follow the written rule/law.

So the rule/law is what controls the rational ground. It is obvious to me that this is so legal and legitimate enough to be called a legitimate domination. We might think of America as a nation which is following the rational ground. But in fact, America isn’t purely following the rational ground. Every citizens has their own shares and own powers to own arms. If they are not pleased with the government then they might revolt and bring down the government. This clearly shows us that countries that makes the bearing of weapon be legalized, isn’t legal bureaucratically dominated.

The second ground is the traditional grounds. Traditional grounds in the other hand don’t even follow the written law. The most important part is the tradition itself. The leader or the dominating group is not quite superior in comparison to the rational ground. The service and the total obedience to the ruler come not from the ability or the superiority of the ruler but from personal royalty.

In order to create a law in traditional ground, in my opinion is impossible. I say this because in traditional ground, everything should come from the good old ways. To create a law is to make a new law and according to my understanding of tradition, there is nothing new but only the good old ways that accompanies the subjects of the traditional ground.

The third ground is the charismatic ground. In order to understand this concept of Weber much vividly, I have found the actual definition of the word “charisma” from the Oxford dictionary.

“Charisma is defined as: the powerful personal quality that some people have to attract and impress other people.” (2000)

So we can assume by the definition that this ground requires leaders or rulers who are not acquired by legality nor tradition but a leader who is charismatic enough to attract many followers.

When I think of a charismatic leader, I think of Adolph Hitler. Hitler was not a great example of a leader for sure but he was surely attractive enough to bring one of the biggest wars in the history of the world killing many innocent lives including Jews. I wouldn’t agree with Weber categorizing Jesus as a charismatic leader but in his perspective, Jesus could have looked like a perfect example for his theory.

Going back to the origin of all these theory “legitimate domination,” I would like to emphasize the fact that legitimate domination is only possible by the members who have agreed to follow the domination. If there isn’t any agreement, then there will be no domination.

“Domination was defined above as the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons.” (1978, Weber)

Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (6th edition).(2000).
Oxford university press

Weber, Max (1978). Economy and society (G. Roth and C. Wittich).
Berkeley: University of California. (Originally published in 1922).

Max Weber philosophy of history monograph

The Righteous thief

As I was struggling to choose a right kind of legitimate domination by Max Weber and the person to write about, one person lighted the bulb of my thought. But the problem was that this person is one of the characters of the most famous piece of Korean literature, “the story of Hong Gildong.”

“Hong Gildong is a fictitious character in an old Korean novel, the story of Hong Gildong written in the Joseon Dynasty. The story was authored by Heo Gyun and is believed to have been written in the late 16th or early 17th century. Hong Gildong is famous for his robbing the rich to feed the poor, much like the English folk hero Robin Hood.” (wikipedia)

Hong Gildong was born as an illegitimate child. He wasn’t accepted from his father and his own family. According to Korean traditions, illegitimate children are not allowed to call their father as father. They weren’t capable to use the word “father,” but instead they used the word “master.” (wikipedia)

In this kind of poor background, his father tries to kill him after hearing the news from a shaman that Hong Gildong is cursed. Being surprised by his father’s action, Hong goes out into the world where he becomes a thief robbing rich and corrupt government official’s properties and shares it with the poor. (wikipedia)

For this cause, Hong Gildong becomes a hero within the peasant society. But in the other hand, he is wanted by the government for he is marked as the national traitor. So the government tries to capture Hong for many times but the government fails many times. Eventually, the government gives him a high ranking occupation to keep him from stealing and agitating the angry mobs. (wikipedia)

After being the war minister for some time, Hong realizes that the suffering of the people has not been vanished. So he tries to solve the suffrage of the people by searching the truth. On his way, he discovers a nation called Yul-do, which was oppressed by the demons. Eventually, he defeats the demons and becomes the king of Yul-do, reigning over the people of Yul-do as a good king and leader. (wikipedia)

This story is surely a traditionalist revolution. Before the Confucianism took a major place in the lifestyle of Koreans, there were freedoms to call father as a father. But after the Confucianism in Korea, many things changed. And in order to go back to the old good days, Hong Gildong revolts to the center authority which is the government governed by King Yunsangun.

So I believe that it is alright to say that Hong Gildong was a traditional leader who has shown legitimacy through traditions that Weber strongly imposes in his theory. I would admit that in a modernized world, it is truly hard or should I say it is nearly impossible for us to find a true traditional hero that would fit right into the category of Weber. But I sure do hope that there will be a decent traditional leader whose name will be worthy enough to be fit all the categories of traditional leader of Weber.

Hong Gildong. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2008
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Gildong

Weber, Max (1978). Economy and society (G. Roth and C. Wittich).
Berkeley: University of California. (Originally published in 1922).

Nietzsche philosophy of history position paper

The two sides

What is there to disagree if I say, “she is pretty but she has a bad accent.” Or if I say “I would like to propose a cultural exchange program and the advantages and the disadvantages are……” If there are two sides, the positive and the negative, the big and the small, the advantages and the disadvantages, then it will be absurd to say “I totally disagree!”

The idea of Friedrich Nietzsche in this sense is very reasonably compared to other philosophers and historical thinkers. In fact, his masterpiece which was written in 1872 was entitled “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” which shows the two sides of history’s usage.

Two sides in Nietzsche’s case were the positive side and the negative side. If there was something positive about the proposed theory, then there must have been or there should have been a negative side about the theory.

Adding more details into my vague explanation on the types of Nietzsche’s theory, I would like to briefly discuss about the most important part of his theory which is the way he sees the history in three distinct historical interpretation or the three different types of history.

The first type of history according to Nietzsche is the monumental history. Monumental history is actually self explanatory until some extent because monumental history deals with monumental events and beings.

The example of monumental history is around us. We can easily pass by monuments or statues of heroes on the road. We see certain statues but sometimes don’t even know why they are there and the purpose of the statue standing in the middle of the road blocking the driver’s view.

The advantage of the monumental history is in my own words, learning from the past. There are certain things that are truly beneficial for us in the past. We don’t have to start from the baseline but we could start from the very end that our ancestors who has been a great model to the society and culture. For example, in the fields of medical science, we do not have to repeat all the procedures or experiments to find the great theories and findings of Hippocrates.

In the fields of psychology, we do not have to repeat all the experiments to come up with the thoughts about consciousness and unconscious nature that Sigmund Freud mentioned in his theory of psychology. In fact, the field of medical science or the field of psychology or other fields that were touched or built by other monumental beings are improved and will improve by standing firm on those achievements that our predecessors achieved.

But there’s another side which is the disadvantage of the monumental history. As I’ve mentioned earlier, some people doesn’t even know the purpose or the name of the monument that they are passing by. No one really cares about the deep meaning of Christmas or other national holidays that are monumental to us.

Another disadvantage of the monumental history is that it takes out, segregates, and almost deletes certain part of the history that isn’t monumental. And I quote

“Thus, if the monumental consideration of the past rules over the other forms of analyzing it, I mean, over the antiquarian and the critical methods, then the past itself suffers harm. Really large parts of it are forgotten, despised, and flow forth like an uninterrupted gray flood, and only a few embellished facts raise themselves up above, like islands.” (Nietzsche, 2007)

This is a great loss for historical thinker therefore monumental history needs a backup or an upgrade version in order to enhance the disadvantage of it. And I say that the backup for this type of history is the second type of history according to Nietzche, “the antiquarian type of history.”

The antiquarian type is the study of the collection of antiquities and of old things that we value. Antiquarian type of history includes the culture and tradition, the place that people are living which is the nation that they are included in.

In the time of crisis such as war or famine in one nation, beasts or animals tends to move into a different habitat, but the citizens of one’s nation which is under crisis tends to stay hoping that their nation will be recovered.

“The contentment of a tree with its root, the happiness of knowing oneself not to be holy or arbitrary, and accidental but rather as going out of the past as its heir, flower and fruit.” (Nietzsche, 2007)

If this is the positive side of the antiquarian type of history valuing the culture and tradition as something that is sacred and venerated, the negative side of the antiquarian history is the failure of distinguishing what is to be venerated and what not.

There is certain thing that needs enhancement. We can’t live in a hut or a tent forever. We shouldn’t use hands to eat because our ancestors used to eat with their hands. In this sense, antiquarian history has a big loophole that left the third world countries underdeveloped.

“Antiquarian history hinders the powerful resolve for new life. Stops human creativity and leaves it shackled to the dead hand of the past.” (Nietzsche, 2007)

And again, in order to fill all the gaps and loopholes of both monumental and antiquarian type of history, the third type of history, the critical history is stated by Nietzsche.

Critical history helps an individual to criticize the past events. It can give a very genuine product of history after passing the judgment table of an individual’s criticizes. But does that mean that critical history is “the type of history” that we should all follow? Sad to say that critical history is also a theory that is imperfect.

Personally, I don’t like people criticizing or judging others especially by the outer appearance of an individual. The same idea applies to the critical history. Because there is no one who is perfect enough so that he/she can’t be judged or criticized. And there is no historical event that doesn’t deserve any criticism.

After all has been said, I’m truly amazed about the scope and the broadness of Nietzsche’s philosophy of history. I agree with his understanding of history which teaches us that not just one type of the history is valued against another. But all three has to be present in order for us individuals to have a clearer and more accurate understanding of history.


Nietzsche, F. (2007). On the use and abuse of history for life (I. C. Johnston, Trans.).
(Originally published in 1873). Retrieved March 27, 2008, from
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/history.htm.

Nietzsche philosophy of history monograph

The Monument of Korea

Thinking about monuments and statues to support the idea of monumental type of history by Nietzsche, I have succeeded to recall one statue that I saw when I was visiting Korea. The statue that I saw was heavily armed man who was carrying a sword longer than his body.

Admiral Yi Sun-sin is one of the most famous heroes in Korea. Not just in Korea, he is worshipped as one of the gods in Japan. His statues can be seen in many different places, especially in tourist attraction spots in Korea.

So the question is “why is that statue standing in the middle of the road? Why do we need that statue there and what is the purpose of putting a stone man who is heavily armored on the tourist attraction spot?”

I believe that the reason for those statues to stand there is because they give certain benefits for the people. I think the definition of the monumental history according to Nietzche will help us understand the benefits of the monuments. Monumental history inspires people. It is a role model who has achieved a goal that almost seems impossible.

Going back to Admiral Yi, he fought against the Japanese naval force; during the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592, for twenty three times and gained victory for twenty three consecutive times.

“Yi is remembered for his numerous victories fighting the Japanese during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592~1598). In 1592, Toyotomi Hideyoshi gave the order to invade Joseon, to sweep through the peninsula and use it as a forward base to conquer China. After the Japanese attacked Busan, Yi began his naval operations from Yeosu, his headquarters. Quickly, he won the Battle of Okpo, Battle of Sacheon, and several others. The string of victories made the Japanese generals suddenly wary of the threat at sea. Twenty three battles took place during the war, with Admiral Yi taking victory in all of them.” (wikipedia)

The most well known battle of Admiral Yi is the battle of Myeongnyang. He gained victory against massive Japanese naval force with only 13 ships.

“At the Battle of Myeongnyang, Yi proved victorious in the battle with 13 panokseons, while the Japanese had at least 333 ships (133 warships, at least 200 logistical).” (wikipedia)

Those unbelievable facts are the well known part of Admiral Yi. Koreans tends to think of the Battle of Myeongnyang or the savior of the Japanese invasion of Korea when they see the statue of Admiral Yi. The statue of Admiral Yi makes them proud to become the citizens of Korea. This monumental history makes a great model for the generations to come.

I believe that there were many other generals of the time whose names are worthy enough to be mentioned on the history textbook of Korea, but obviously this didn’t happen. The name of Admiral Yi is the most exalted and most valued in the history textbooks while others, we do not even know their existence. This is the actual downside of the monumental history.

Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of monumental type of history, I have realized the danger that we will definitely face when we look at history with just one perspective. It is important for us to value to benefits that those perspectives can give, and complement the mistakes or disadvantages with other understandings of history.

Bibliography

Yi Sun-sin. Retrieved on August 20, 2008
from http://en.wikipedia.org/yi_sun-sin

Marx philosophy of history position paper

Position paper #5 (Karl Marx)

The prophecy

While reading the idea of Marxism by Karl Marx, I was astonished about the coverage of his theory. Especially the idea that communism is the answer to the problem of history sounded very absurd to me. This is because in my own understanding, the problem of history can’t be just answered by one theory.

These are the three main problems of history according to Marx.

1. Man the producer
2. Division of Labor (Gender based)
3. The problem of Scarcity

The first issue untangles the idea of homo faber; man as a producer. In Latin, this means “workman.” In fact, man is the only being that makes constant changes in the environment and produce materials for better living.

“Humans are the only animals that manipulate and change their environment constantly. Refashion it to fit their evolving historical needs and desires. In other words man, homo faber is the only species that produces with cognitive forethought. And in fact that’s his key to cognition and consciousness.” (Kant, 2002)

The second issue basically states the division of labor among people. The great example is the primitive man. In primitive society, which was a patriarch, man was the hunter of the food while woman was the cooker of the food. When male went hunting for the food woman waited for her man while taking care of her children.

The third issue is the problem of scarcity. What if there isn’t enough food to eat for the people living in the community? Some people are rich enough to afford good foods to nourish themselves while others are starving to death. The problem of scarcity in my opinion actually leads us to the problem of class struggle.

I can’t deny the fact that there are class struggles happening all around the world. In fact I believe that it is happening in every nation while the size of the struggle differs. But doest that mean that the answer to this class struggle is to impose communism? I strongly disagree with this idea.

I would like to quote a sentence that I came upon while researching for communism.

“The collapse of communism in east central Europe and the Soviet Union marked the end of the Cold War.” (US Department of States, 1989)

The question that I truly want to ask is “why did communism in east central Europe collapse?” “How in the world is it possible for a communism to collapse when Marx said that the communism is the answer to the problem of history and scarcity?”

I believe that the one sentence that I’ve quoted is more than enough to say that communism is a dream. A prophecy that Marx made but it won’t happen as long as we have greed and selfishness inside us.


Marx, K. (2002) Das kapital (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). (Ehrbar, H.G., Trans.)
(Originally published in 1890).


U.S. department of state. (1989) Fall of communism. Retrieved (July 25, 2008)

Marx philosophy of history monograph

Monograph #5 (Karl Marx)

The Bourgeoisie

The concept about the bourgeoisie varies in many different ways. The way of the modern people of our time look at these blessed individuals differed from the view of the 14th 15th century Europeans.

In our concept and understanding of the bourgeoisie, we then to think of them as high class citizens who are wealthy and blessed with a high social status and high standards of living. But the word bourgeoisie evolved from the old French word burgeis, meaning “an inhabitant of a town.”

What does this emphasize? It actually tells us the that word bourgeoisie was neither referred to the nobles nor the ruling class in Europe, but a middle class citizens like doctors, artisans, and merchants who had the knowledge and probably certain amount of wealth.

So the problem occurred when these smart intellects couldn’t obtain or achieve the privileges that the noble class or the aristocrats enjoyed no matter how hard they have worked nor how wealthy they were.

“In the French feudal order pre-revolution, “bourgeois” was a class of citizens who were wealthier members of the Third Estate, but were overtaxed and had none of the privileges which the aristocracy held.” (wikipedia)

The great examples of the class struggle between the aristocrats and the bourgeois is the American Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

On April of 1775, the war broke out between America and Britain. The well known hero and the founding fathers of the United States, George Washington was appointed as the Major General for the side of Americans, and later becoming the commander-in-chief.

The history records that George Washington was also elected to the Virginia provincial legislature, the House of Burgesses, which makes it clearer to us that George Washington who led the American Revolution, classified himself as a bourgeoisie. And he was fighting against the British monarchy and aristocrats who has limited the power of the wealthy colonizers (including George Washington) the burgesses or the bourgeoisie.

As we all know, America attained freedom after the revolution. After the war, the wealthy colonizers got the freedom and privileges that the aristocrats enjoyed. In fact I believe that it is appropriate to say that these Bourgeoisie brought capitalism as they became the ruling class of our day.

Capitalism is another step closer to the concept of social utopia or the communism that Karl Marx proposed. We never know what would happen but I believe that it is safe to say that the class struggle between the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie brought us the dream and ambitions to get wealthier and higher in social status without limitations.

Bourgeoisie. Retrieved on August 12, 2008
from http://en.wikipedia.org/brougeoisie

George Washington, Retrieved on August 18, 2008
Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/26/hh26f.htm

The American Dream (1951~2000)

The American dream

In a world that is rapidly changing, historians are busy with interpreting the new sets or should I say modernized sets of documents and other sources in order to come up with a valid understanding of where our generation is actually headed to,

It might sound over generalizing but the changes in the America for the past 50 years cannot be and should not be ignored for these changes in America affected the whole world.

The time span that I’m trying to interpret is the history of America from 1951 to 2000. For the past 50 years or to be exact, 58 years, America underwent rapid changes especially in human rights.

We all know that America is a country that respects the law more than anything else. Americans respected the treaties and laws from the beginning of their colonization of America. And we can see that thorough some documents like the Mayflower compact.

Going back to the historical interpretation of the past 50 years of United States, I have used the philosophy of Collingwood in order to understand and connect the missing pieces in the history that needs fair interpretation.

As it is mentioned earlier in this paper, I would like to begin with the changes in the human rights. On May 17, 1954, there was a court case held against the board of education by an Afro-American girl who filed the case because she thought that segregation of the whites and blacks in education is not equal at all. And I quote the concluding statement of the Supreme Court for this trial

“We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

In my opinion, this conclusion is a truly comprehending conclusion for the Afro-Americans. In fact segregating whites and blacks and saying that the nation is for the equal doesn’t make any sense. The second Supreme Court case that I’m going to mention is the Gideon v. Wainwright. In this trial, Gideon who is the criminal wasn’t in a condition to afford a counsel so he asked the judge to appoint him a counsel. But the court turned him down and he had to defend himself which was truly a lonely fight.

This case was resolved by stating “The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he is not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.”

The third Supreme Court case is the New York Times v. Sullivan. In this case, Sullivan argues about to what extent New York Times has when we say “freedom of publishing?” Sullivan also argues that when New York Times was describing the revolt of Afro-Americans and about Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., New York Times was writing some things that were far from the truth.

The fourth Supreme Court case is the Miranda v. Arizona, the trial is about informing the criminal that they have the right to remain silent and everything that they say can be used against them. Because in the case of Miranda, he wasn’t foretold about these rights therefore he was forced to speak to the police officers of what kind of crimes he committed.

The fifth Supreme Court case is Roe v. Wade. In this trial Roe challenges the court and says that prohibition of abortion is the abridging of personal privacy right that is protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. And the court dismisses this case with three stages.

1) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

2) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

3) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

What is the main similarity between all these said Supreme Court cases? I have lined them up to emphasize my point in a brief yet in a very powerful way that would convince the reader. All the Supreme Court cases are talking about human rights. The cases were raised by the people who thought that their right as the citizenship of America is being abridged.

What was being abridged on the case of Brown v. board of education? The right to have equal chances in education. On the case of New York Times co. v. Sullivan the right that was over used by the publishers offended the readers who knew what was published in the magazine wasn’t true. What about the case of Roe v. Wade? Roe felt abridged of her right to personal privacy.

But can we really say that Roe is justified for aborting a baby because she had the right to personal privacy? If you have the freedom of speech that can you really say anything that you want about the government and not get caught by the police? Or because you have the freedom of publishing, can you publish things that are false and misleading people while offending them at the same time?

The right issue is something that we should think deeper before we say that our right is abridged. In the case of Brown v. the board of education, she had a valid reason to protect her right as a citizen of United States. But sad to say in the case of Roe, I can’t agree at all because killing an innocent life inside the mother’s womb because the mother thinks that prohibition of abortion is abridging the right of personal privacy doesn’t make much sense to me.

We should truly see the true importance of right because rights that we possess can be beneficial or harmful to others around us. But this importance in my opinion has been ignored when the human rights movement has erupted in America during 1950s. People thought that they were defending their right but at the same time they have lost many valuable things in order to defend their so called “rights.”
This paper is in fact not suggesting the abolishment of human rights. I think that human right is a wonderful gift for the citizens. It is a gift as well as a protection against some things that are illegal. But if we are just thinking of ourselves and our goal of protecting our own rights rather than thinking of others then the cases like Roe v. Wade happens.

If only the mother thought about the life that is inside her womb then her own rights of personal privacy, then I personally believe that many lives could have been saved. Did the emancipation proclamation which granted the right of freedom to the Afro-American people respected and followed by whites? Well it surely changed many things like banning of the slavery but there still is a discrimination going on and we should think of a better way to solve this problem rather than just being reliant to the rights that we possess.

The speech that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. made was truly powerful. When he was making his “I have a dream” speech, he truly had a vision. A vision that one day every black man and white man would hold hands. A vision that America will become a nation without racism. But did that speech really solved the problem of racism? Did the fighting for equality really solve the problem of racism? I’m not saying that these speeches are useless or pursuing personal right is something that we shouldn’t do but I’m suggesting more of a critical way to solve the main problem rather than solving the problem partially.

On the other hand, 1950s to 2000 was also the time of war and peace. The Vietnam War, nuclear defense between America and Soviet Union, war resolution, and the meeting of the president of Egypt, prime minister of Israel and President Jimmy Carter.

I have found a very interesting statement in the speech that the president J.F. Kennedy made by the Nuclear test ban treaty between America and the Soviet Union.

“Even a nation as young and as peace-loving as our own has fought through eight wars. And three times in the last two years and a half I have been required to report to you as President that this Nation and the Soviet Union stood on the verge of direct military confrontation--in Laos, in Berlin, and in Cuba.” (Kennedy, 1963)

I think this statement contradicts itself. President Kennedy says that the United States is a peace loving country yet it went through 8 wars. A nation that doesn’t even have 300 years of history going through 8 wars is something that a war loving country would do rather than a peace loving country. The next paragraph from the same article is also very interesting.

“Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union nor the United Kingdom nor France can look forward to that day with equanimity. We have a great obligation, all four nuclear powers have a great obligation, to use whatever time remains to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to persuade other countries not to test, transfer, acquire, possess, or produce such weapons.” (Kennedy, 1963)

United States obviously possesses nuclear power and as long as Soviet Union produces more nuclear weapons, United States is also willing to create equal amount of weapons in order to protect their own nation. But Kennedy saying that we should keep our nuclear weapons yet prevents others from making or buying nuclear weapons seems contradicting again. The ideology behind the nuclear weapons is something that is so simple yet so dangerous therefore the solution is to trash all the nuclear weapons at the same time and leave without fear.

And now I would like to conclude this short history about the events that have occurred for the past 50 years with the idea of American dream. What is American dream? Martin Luther King says that his dream is actually the American dream.

“So in though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.” (King Jr. 1963)

So does it mean that American dream is the freedom of the Afro-American from racial discrimination? Or the protection of individual right? Is going to war an American dream?

When I think of American dream, I think of living a wealthy life with two cars in the garage in California. But all these factors about racism, human right, and war should somehow be related with this ultimate dream that they have and are pursuing in the future.

America is a strong nation. We know that it is the wealthiest nation in the world and it has also the strongest military forces and advanced technology. But the question is that will the American empire continue with all the problems that are unsolved inside the nation such as racism and the problems in relation to human rights, and the problems outside the country such as war and treaty.

American dream will be kept when all these factors are solved and the nation becomes more united as a whole. But when the problems are left unsolved then the fall of the American empire will occur and the American dream will no longer be attained.

Reaction Paper on 1951~2000

Due to the less amount of document that were proposed earlier for the 1902~1950 paper, I had less difficulties connecting/relating every documents in an appropriate manner for this paper to flow smoothly.

Another benefactor was that this paper was allowed to have background research that enabled us to understand and clearly relate the set of documents that were proposed.

Yet I wouldn’t say that this paper didn’t have within the difficulties that any other history paper does. The difficulties that I’ve personally faced were the selection of topic and what to concentrate on when I write this paper. In other words, with a decent topic, it would be much easier for the historian to relate each document but without a topic or a poor topic, it would be much harder to understand the paper and the paper itself will turn out to have a poor quality.

For this paper though, I believe that I’ve found a decent topic “the American dream” and made it easier for the readers to understand what American dream is all about according to the documents.

The connection went smoother than the last paper that I’ve wrote and I haven’t faced much difficulties in writing this paper except the time limitation and the works that were loaded for me to finish in order for me to get a fair grade in this semester.

It was a busy semester and heavy load of paper works. But through this paper works, I believe that my understanding towards history and my writing skills has improved more than ever.

Hegel's philosophy of history position paper

GREAT MAN

After realizing the fact that Hegel called himself “great man,” I was very astonished and at the same time interested about the concept of the great man that Hegel proposed in his own philosophy of history.

I was wondering and asking questions like “why in the world did Hegel classify himself as a great man that moves the world spirit forward? And what good is it for Hegel to become a great man?”

Looking back at the things that Hegel wrote, I got confused. The reason for this confusion is because Hegel says that the great man is used by the World Spirit and after its usage, disposed leaving the great man to suffer a tragic death.

If that was the case of Napoleon, Caesar and Hegel himself, then does this mean that every great man suffered a tragic death? Does this mean that every great man who moved the world spirit forward should actually follow the pattern that Hegel discovered?

About this idea, I personally disagree because I have found some great man (maybe Hegel might not consider them as “great” but the history tells us that they are great) who doesn’t fit into the category or classification of Hegel.

The great man that I’ve chose to challenge the philosophy of Hegel is the first president of the United States, President George Washington.

The thesis of George Washington will be the British Empire enforcing acts and rules in a colonized state. According to the history, George Washington wasn’t a wealthy man from the beginning but after the marriage with a wealthy widow Martha Dandridge Custis, made him strong in a sense of political and economical strength.

“Washington’s marriage to a wealthy widow greatly increased his property holdings and social standing. He acquired one-third of the 18,000 acre Custis estate upon his marriage, and managed the remainder on behalf of Martha’s children.

After gaining wealth and political support, George Washington held local office and was elected to the Virginia provincial legislature, the House of Burgesses, and he served as a justice of Fairfax, and held court in Alexandria, Virginia between 1760 and 1774.” (National Monument)

This proves to us that George Washington was gaining strength. In order to obtain his strength, he had to find a way which was in this case “the American Revolution.” Having problems with the parliamentary type of government which acquired taxation and other acts, George Washington fought the fight and established a new nation called the United States.

The antithesis against the parliamentary government of the Great Britain is the republican government of the United States. And in result to this antithesis, synthesis which is the new constitution of United States was amended.

“George Washington served for two terms as the first president of the United States, after retiring from the presidency in March 1797, Washington returned to Mount Vernon with a profound sense of relief. He devoted much time to faming and, in that year constructer a 2,250 square foot distillery, which was one of the largest in the new republic, housing five copper stills, a boiler and 50 mash tubs, at the site of one of his unprofitable farms. At its peak, two years later, the distillery produced 11,000 gallons of corn and rye whiskey worth $7,500, and fruit brandy.” (National monument)

If his goal was to achieve economic freedom from British parliamentary system, then I believe that he has achieved what he has fought for. I believe that he has achieved his goal therefore the happiness without much suffrage was granted to this great man. Although he died of fever and throat infection, he was 67 years old and it’s hard to see that he has suffered greatly in comparison to other “great man” that Hegelians use to defend their theory.

Even being called by King George III, who was his enemy, as “the greatest man in the world,” George Washington with no doubt was the great man in the history of the world. His achievements and success is still benefiting the United States to become the strongest nation in the world. If there were great man who suffered greatly to move the world spirit forward without achieving their goal of freedom and happiness, in my opinion, there was also great man who has achieved their goal and happiness without suffering the tragic death like George Washington.



George Washington, Retrieved on August 18, 2008
Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/26/hh26f.htm