I just joined Bluesky for some reason. I'd like to find people who are interested in talking about comparative rhetoric and books about Taiwan.
I'm not sure if I'll stay on; if it seems worth it, I'll stay, but right now I don't see much going on that I'm interested in.
As I like to say to my mom, "We'll see what happens."
They don't all apply, but they're food for thought:
"One thing a lot of Democrats are thinking about these days" (11/7/04)
"Faith and rhetoric in the U.S. election (and beyond)" (11/7/04)
"A note from an Ohio 'Blue'" (11/11/04)
For some reason, I didn't notice the overlap between the themes of the two books I wrote about--even though they're right in the titles! It wasn't until I went to hear Kim Liao talk about her book and answer a question about her choice of title that it clicked with me that both of the books are about hauntings. (Hence the title of my blogpost.) Anru Lee's book, Haunted Modernities, involves both the literal and figurative ghostly presence of the 25 "maiden ladies" who died in the 1973 ferry accident in decisions about how to honor them even as Kaohsiung's economy and culture shifted from industrial to post-industrial and to a tourist destination. Kim Liao's book, Where Every Ghost Has a Name, at times describes Thomas Liao's ghostly presence guiding Kim through her journey of learning about him.
While the first book is an anthropological work and the second a memoir, they both take seriously Taiwanese beliefs about the afterlife. Lee in particular doesn't try to explain away the spiritual aspects but situates it among the cultural and economic changes in Kaohsiung (and at the same time situates the cultural and economic changes among the spiritual aspects of the lives and deaths of the 25 young women).
One story in Lee's book that exemplifies this involves a Kaohsiung City employee, Mr. Lin, who around 2006 was tasked with the job of getting the family members of the deceased female workers to agree to renovate their tombs. The family members had to ask the deceased young women by casting divination blocks. They got agreement from most of them, but one deceased woman wouldn't respond to her surviving sister. Finally, Mr. Lin agreed to talk to the deceased sister himself.
However, he also did not get a good response, even after multiple attempts. "After a while, I had to consult a religious practitioner at a local temple and learn to phrase my plea in a hard-to-refuse way," Lin explained. ...
Even so, an unequivocal "yes" was still hard to come by. Mr. Lin begged and begged, and even promised to bring fruits as offerings to the deceased every month in the future. ... "In the end, I told them I was only a minor employee who took orders from some big boss [i.e., the mayor] and pleaded with them to understand my quandary. As soon as I said that, they granted me a divine answer. [These women] certainly know the difficulties of being someone's subordinate!" (138-9)
Anru Lee gave a talk today about her book at the University of Washington. In the Q&A period, there was a lot of talk about "haunting as method" in Lee's book:
I just finished reading Anru Lee's Haunted Modernities, which was a fascinating study of the intersections of memory, feminism, women's lives (and deaths), modernization, industrialization, post-industrialization, and local traditional religious beliefs and practices in Taiwan. I'd love to use it in a class, but I'm not sure that I'm ever going to teach a class in which I can teach it...
Here's a podcast interview with Anru Lee about her book.
I had put Lee's book aside briefly, partly due to work and partly because I wanted to finish Kim Liao's book Where Every Ghost Has a Name before she comes to Northeastern this coming Wednesday. I enjoyed this book, too. It gave me a new perspective on Thomas Liao, an historical figure I've read about mostly through the lens of his correspondence with George H. Kerr. It also ties in to my honors course text, Mira Shimabukuro's Relocating Authority, in interesting ways, particularly in terms of how they're both investigating histories that were suppressed both by unsympathetic governments and by the survivors of past trauma who sometimes just wanted to forget about the past.
Here's an interview with Kim Liao about her book.
Need to watch this video sometime.
Just picked up (well, was sent) a new book from the University of Washington Press on the CIA and the Asia Foundation, a Cold War-era nonprofit/CIA front (that is now evidently not funded by the CIA, I guess). The book is Cold War Deceptions: The Asia Foundation and the CIA, by David H. Price.
One thing I'll be reading this book for is how it extends or differs from Emma North-Best's long article on the CIA and the Asia Foundation on the MuckRock website. I remember reading that article a few years ago after I came across a 1951 letter from Philip Horton, assistant editor of The Reporter, to Allen Dulles, who was "Deputy Director for Plans" at the CIA at the time (if Wikipedia is correct).
In the letter, Horton quotes a letter he had received from Kerr (who was at the Hoover Library at the time), in which Kerr criticized the Committee for a Free Asia (the precursor to the Asia Foundation). Kerr reported on a visit to Hoover by CFA president George H. Greene, Jr.* (not sure what his first name was). Kerr continued,
Either the management is extraordinarily naive, or they assume us to be so. The line will be almost unmodified extension of the Voice of America or U.S.I.S. propaganda. "Tell the Asians how wonderful life is in America, how good our institutions are, and how very very wicked and dangerous the Communists are." There is heavy emphasis on the latter approach, with little ready response to our questions concerning positive content. It was freely admitted that China is the primary concern. Chiang is to be neither praised nor condemned. "Counterpart Committees" will be set up overseas, operating under guarantees that the local government will not influence nor affect the content of propaganda. It was asserted that such a condition was expected to obtain in Formosa, which is to be a principal base of operations.
It has been pointed out to the representatives of the Committee that (1) most Asians are tired of hearing how good we are, and the history of our representative institutions has little bearing on their problems, for the conditions surrounding their evolution cannot be duplicated in Asia; (2) most non-Chinese Asians fear a strong China, whatever its political orientation, and will hardly respond with enthusiasm to a rally in support of "anti-Communist government" for China, especially if it means support for the Nationalists; (3) Formosa cited as an example of "Free Asia" would be damaging nonsense.
Those of us who talked with Greene have a troubled sense that the Administration may have decided to switch to all-out support for the Nationalists, hopefully trusting that Chiang may be thrust aside, and that the Committee not only has the State Department's blessing in this attempt to sweeten the picture, but is most actively setting it up. Each of us asks the other if at any point the [China] Lobby may be putting up funds. Odd to conceive, but not impossible in Washington.
Actually, if the thing were worked out on a realistic appraisal of the American position in Asian eyes, it could do an enormously important job, unhampered by red tape.
Wonder if this letter helped get Kerr in any trouble with the government...
*All you had to do was look in the index of the book you just bought, Jon... 🙄
I just got my copy of Kim Liao's Where Every Ghost Has a Name: A Memoir of Taiwanese Independence, which came into print (or "dropped," as the youngsters say) a few days ago. I read a little of it on the Amazon website (as much as I could) while I waited for the hardback copy, and I can't wait to read it. I'm going to put it next on my list after finishing Anru Lee's Haunted Modernities. (Interestingly, Lee has a blurb on the back of Liao's book.)
I'm especially interested in seeing how Kim Liao treats the relationship between Thomas Liao and his family and George H. Kerr. I realize that, as K. Liao says, this is a work of creative nonfiction, so some of the conversations between the characters are reimagined, but I want to see how her perspective on Kerr compares to my own perspective.
Kim Liao is coming to Northeastern in October, so I guess I'd better get going on reading her book!
I'm happy to announce that I've chosen the first book that I'll be reading on the train to school, starting on Tuesday (I'm sure all of my reader was dying to know): Haunted Modernities: Gender, Memory, and Placemaking in Postindustrial Taiwan, by Anru Lee.
I mentioned back in May that I had started to read the book shortly after I received it, but then, between teaching two summer courses and getting a book review and some other writing projects done during the summer, plus preparing for my honors course, I just didn't have time to get back to it. I really have enjoyed it so far, though, and I'm looking forward to getting back to it. Maybe I'll write a few notes about it once I finish.
We're just a few days away from the beginning of the semester, and I've been feverishly working at getting my new "Rhetorics in Contact" course together. Right now it's a pretty small group of students (it's a freshman-level course in the Honors Program), but a few more people might trickle in before classes start next Wednesday, I hope.
My course description asks,
What happens when people try to communicate persuasively with each other across cultural boundaries? How do participants’ histories, traditions, and communication patterns shape cross-cultural encounters, and how do those encounters shape future communication within and across cultures?
In this course, we’ll be looking at different examples of how rhetorical traditions or legacies affect communication across cultural boundaries and how cross-cultural encounters are represented differently by the participants. Through the course readings, we’ll be developing a specialized vocabulary for talking about intercultural rhetoric and thinking about methods for studying it. We’ll go on to apply some of these methods to documents in the Special Collections of the Northeastern Archives, analyzing the discourses of social organizations and movements in Boston, such as the Chinese Progressive Association and the movement to desegregate Boston’s public schools. We’ll also reflect on how rhetoric across cultures affects (or should affect) advocacy in the complex global and local contexts that we currently face.
I haven't done this for a few years (I think the last time was 2021), but it's not necessarily a bad idea to write down a few things I'm going to try to do this year (or at least this semester).
One is to try to get up earlier in the morning. I can use the time to do a little writing and get my Duolingo done. I used to do the Duolingo on the train into school, but this semester, I want to use my commute time to read. As my reader(s) know, I've got a stack of books that I should get started on!
Another thing I need to do is make time for writing. I have to do revisions on a paper that has been accepted (my first journal article about GHK!), and then I need to get to work on a collaboratively written biography of Kerr. I also have a rhetoric paper to work on that I have been ignoring for months.
I guess that's a good start--as I've said in the past, when it comes to resolutions, less is more!
My review of Stephen J. Hartnett's book, A World of Turmoil: The United States, China, and Taiwan in the Long Cold War, is out in the latest issue of Rhetoric & Public Affairs. (Although the issue is dated Fall, 2023, it was published almost a year later!)
While I had a few problems with Hartnett's conclusions and recommendations, I found the book to be a valuable overview of the roles of communication and rhetoric in the history of US-China-Taiwan relations from a Taiwan-sympathetic rhetoric scholar.
I've been hearing a lot lately from friends and relatives about various age-related or partially age-related health problems they're encountering. And then I share my own health problems back! I guess I'm at that stage of life when this is par for the course. Combined with that are the deaths of famous people from my childhood or youth, like Richard Simmons, Bob Newhart, Dr. Ruth, etc. And then President Biden steps away from the presidential campaign after lots of loud questions about his ability to govern at his age. (I'm not going to go into political commentary here.)
Not sure what point I'm trying to make here, if any. Just that this is on my mind these days.
Got back from a short trip to find these two books that I ordered from 博客來 books:
The latter is in both English and Chinese, so I'll probably be reading that first. But before that, I have a lot of work to catch up on...
This was produced in 2020, but I didn't see it back then. It's pretty interesting. I learned a bit more about higher education during the Japanese colonial period and the martial law period.
I don't agree with some of the information in the video, though. They said that Soochow University was the first private university in Taiwan, but according to Wikipedia, it wasn't actually fully certified as a university until 1971. Classes started at Tunghai University in 1955, though for some reason, Tunghai isn't mentioned in this video.
This week I was supposed to be attending (and presenting at!) the 2024 North American Taiwan Studies Association conference in NYC, but I bowed out in May due to too many other commitments. Turned out that it's lucky I did because last week I had a nasty encounter with some poison ivy that is currently making my life miserable. But I felt a bit bad when I read through the conference handbook and saw how interesting it was going to be. It looks like one of those very rare conferences (in my experience) where I would like to attend almost every session! Ah well...
I have some money left over from my professional development fund for this fiscal year, so I bought a few more books that I thought might be helpful to my research.* Here they are:
I watched a video of last August's Global Taiwan Institute panel discussion, "'America Skepticism Theory': Anti-American Propaganda and Its Impacts on Taiwan's Information Environment."
The first speaker, GTI Deputy Director John Dotson, traced the theory back to 1979 when the US changed recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People's Republic of China. While he doesn't say this is the origin of the theory, he does suggest that the theory has its origins partly in Taiwan's own feelings of being betrayed by the U.S. His main focus, though, is on how the CCP is using and amplifying this theory to drive a wedge between Taiwan and the United States. IORG Co-Director Chihhao Yu also spends a lot of time on PRC propaganda in relation to US skepticism, but he also suggests that the Taiwanese abandonment narrative has its roots in Taiwan's history as a colony, going as far back as 400 years ago.
One thing that I haven't heard so far is the possible connection between skepticism about America's actions/stance toward Taiwan and what George H. Kerr argued was the US "betrayal" of Taiwanese during the early postwar years. Kerr's argument in Formosa Betrayed is not just that the Kuomintang takeover of Taiwan was a betrayal of the hopes of the Taiwanese people for a just and equitable post-war society as they became part of the Chinese nation; it was also that the United States betrayed Taiwan by allowing the KMT to continue to rule Taiwan despite its corruption, incompetence, and authoritarian rule during the White Terror period. Kerr argues that the US took a hands-off position toward what was happening in Taiwan; as he relates, after he met with the director of Office of Far Eastern Affairs in March, 1947, the latter showed him the door "with remarks to the effect that no one in the United Nations and certainly no one in Washington would ever be interested in Formosa."
Kerr watched as the US government continued to support Taiwan's KMT rulers ... until it didn't. When Nixon and Kissinger visited China, Kerr told Richard Koo that he thought Chiang Ching-kuo would use the opportunity to sell out Taiwan and that "Nixon will welcome any arrangement Chiang Ching-kuo will make -- or probably has made -- to hand Formosa over to Peking without a public international intervention or conflict of any sort. ... The interests of the Formosans are of no importance to him [Nixon] if they stand in the way of his ambition" (3 Aug. 1971). Later he described US/China interactions to Mark Mancall as the US presidents "go[ing] hat in hand to 'pay tribute'" (9 Feb. 1975).
And I have quoted many times Chen Rongcheng's afterword (1973)/preface (1991) to the Chinese translation of Formosa Betrayed, where he wrote, ｢人不先自救，誰會救我？｣(“If we do not first help ourselves, who will save us?”) To Chen, it seemed that one of the messages of Formosa Betrayed was not to trust the US too much.
This is not to deny anything that the panelists had to say. It's interesting, though, to speculate on whether the "America Skepticism Theory" might have some of its roots among people who themselves were advocating for Taiwan independence, and who feared being betrayed once again if they depended too much on the US. And that included Kerr himself, who increasingly despaired of the chances that his country would do the "right" thing for Taiwan.
Here's the video of the panel discussion:
I wasn't sure I would be getting these because when I ordered them during the Cornell University Press sale, I never got an email confirmation. But they came today!
