History of
Dr. Wynn
Gadkar-Wilcox History
598
218
Warner Hall Tuesdays,
(203)
837-8565 (work) Warner
Hall 320
(516)
532-6861 (cell)
wilcoxw@wcsu.edu
Course
Website: http://people.wcsu.edu/wilcoxw
Office Hours: TR
Burmese
Monks Protesting the Regime in
Course Description:
Course Objectives: This course aims to:
·
Introduce students to the basic principles of Burmese
history
·
Give students an understanding of how the Burmese past
has effectuated the current crisis in
·
Introduce students to the history and development of
Burmese religious and intellectual minorities
·
Most importantly, develop techniques for analyzing
Burmese intellectual and religious history through examining arguments and
evidence, both orally through debates and discussions and in written format
through the writing and revision of formal essays and through the responses to
discussion questions.
Required
Aung-Thwin, Michael. Myth
and History in the Historiography of Early
________________.
Mists of Ramanna: The Legend that Was
Callahan, Mary.
Making Enemies: War and State-Building in
Orwell, George.
Burmese Days.
Thant Myint-U. River of Lost Footsteps.
Grading: Grades will be determined on
the following basis:
In-class presentations: 20
percent
General
Participation in Class Discussions and Debates: 20 percent
Two Seven
Page Papers: 30 percent each.
More
information on these requirements can be found at the end of the syllabus, in
the “participation criteria” handouts, and online at the course’s website, http://people.wcsu.edu/wilcoxw
Course
Schedule:
Week One: Introduction to the Study of Burmese
History
January 29: Course Introduction; Lecture: The
Basic Facts on
Week Two: Situating
February 5: Presentations: The Indianization Theory; Wolters and
Men of Prowess
Debate: Resolved that early
Week Three:
February
12: Presentations:
Pyus and
Debate: Resolved that the pre-Pagan Mon
Kingdoms were mythical.
Reading:
DGE Hall, History of South-East Asia, 140-5*; Coedes,
62-4*; Aung-Thwin, Mists of Ramanna,
all
Week Four: The
February
19: Presentations:
The Rise and Fall of Pagan in Burmese Historiography.
Debate:
Resolved that our understanding of Pagan has been irretrievably tainted by
modern Burmese nationalist historiography.
Week Five: Ava and Pegu (1364-1555)
February
26: Presentations:
Ava and Pegu
Debate:
Resolved that the major lesson of Pagan’s successor states was that
Reading:
Thant Myint-U,
63-76; Coedes, 209-11; and 227-8*; Aung-Thwin, Myth and History, 63-end.
Week Six: The Toungoo
Dynasty (1580-1752)
March
5: First
Five-Page Paper Due.
Debate:
Resolved that Toungoo success and failure was
inextricably tied to the European economy specifically and to the world economy
generally.
Week Seven: The Konbaung
Dynasty (1752-1819)
March
12: Presentations:
Alaungpaya, Dupleix and
the Anglo-French Rivalry
Debate:
Resolved
that Alaungpaya’s aggressiveness provoked
Week Eight: British Colonization Part I (1819-1885): The Nature of Conquest
March
19: Presentations:
The First, Second, and Third
Anglo-Burmese Wars
Debate: Resolved
that the British colonization of
March
19-25: Enjoy your Spring Break!
Week Nine: British Colonization Part II: Life Under British
Rule
April
2: Presentations:
Orwell and Fashion
Debate:
Resolved that the British should be credited with giving Burmese modernity.
Week Ten: British Colonization Part III: History:
1885-1945
April
9: Presentations:
Indian-Burmese Colonial Relations
Debate: Resolved that YMBA demands for Indian/Burmese separation played into
British hands
Week Eleven: The Burmese
April
16: Presentations:
The BIA, the War, and
Debate:
Resolved that the legitimacy of the Burmese Independence Movement was
tainted by its association with Japanese Fascism
Week Twelve: Aung San, U Nu, and the Early Years of Military
Dictatorship, 1948-1962
April 23: Presentations:
Aung San’s Assasination and
the U Nu Regime
Debate:
Resolved that U Nu’s incompetence is responsible
for the rise of military dictatorship in
Week Thirteen: Ne Win: The
Crackdowns to the Democracy Movement, 1962-1988
April
30: Presentations:
The
Debate:
Resolved that Ne Win’s economic policies, if
properly executed, could have been beneficial
Week Fourteen: The Democracy Movement and the
Struggles against the Military Dictatorship, 1988-Present
May 7: Presentations:
Aung San Suu Kyi, the Four Eights Uprising, and the Protests of 2007-8
Debate:
Resolved that the Burmese democracy movement has been unsuccessful since
1988 due to its failure to sustain international attention and support.
Final Papers due in my box in 224 Warner
Hall by May 14.
CLASS PARTICIPATION, IN CLASS PRESENTATIONS, AND DEBATES
This
course is based predominantly on discussion; thus, a substantial portion of
your grade (40 percent) will be based on your participation. I take this very seriously, and make
notes in each class as to who is actively participating. “Active participation” means that you have
something intelligent to say in class that seems based in and grounded on the
readings of that week. The discussion
grade will be divided as follows:
Quality
of General Participation: 20 points
Performance
in Oral Presentations: 20 points
Each of you will have at least two opportunities (and in
this class, perhaps more) to give an oral presentation for the week’s
discussion. As discussion leader, you
will be responsible for accurately summarizing in no more than three minutes
the main points of the previous week’s reading and beginning the week’s debate
by preparing two follow-up questions related to that week’s debate topic.
More information on these assignments can be found on the
“Oral Presentation” and “General Participation” handouts, which have been
distributed in class and can be found on the website.
Two
7
This paper, the
first of which which is due in class on March
5 and the second of which is due in my box in Warner 224 on May 14 , will present a critique of the central argument of one
of the class readings done in the first half of the class for the first
paper and the second for the second paper.
The reading may be chosen from the articles on electronic reserve or
from of the books that have been assigned.
In some of the books, such as Callahan’s, there are clear, independent
arguments in each chapter; therefore, you can pick a chapter to analyze. In others, such as Spence’s, you might take
the book as a whole to critique, since the each chapter doesn’t really present
an independent argument. The paper
should state what the central argument of the reading is and then take a
position on that argument, making clear the reasons that you think the author
is right, wrong, or partially right and partially wrong. If the argument is effective, make clear
what you think makes it effective. If it
is ineffective, what makes it ineffective?
“Critique” does not
have to be (but can be) synonymous with “criticize.” Feel free to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion of the author. Whether
you agree or disagree, what I am looking for is that you have subjected the
argument to all reasonable scrutiny.
Are the premises that lead to the author’s conclusion accurate? Why or why not? Are there anachronisms, generalizations, or
logical fallacies in the author’s argument?
Finally, never forget to articulate what the consequences of your
conclusions are. For example, if an
argument is anachronistic, why is that bad?
What’s wrong with a generalization?
Don’t assume that just because you’ve heard that something is a flaw in
an argument that I will necessarily consider it a flaw. Show me why it should be considered a flaw.
You are strongly encouraged to visit
with me in my office to discuss the paper, and possible paper topics, with
me. Feel free to bring in outlines and
drafts, if you wish, as well.