Group 1 - Synthesis

[The group is to write their integrated stand in this post,]

Marcus and Liang See - Group 1- Challenge

The Japanese Occupation (JO) was not a watershed for Burmese nationalism as nationalists in Burma had already achieved significant concessions from their British colonial masters prior to World War II. The General Council of Burmese Associations (GCBA), for example, openly challenged British authority through movements such as a student strike at the University of Rangoon, and even successfully wrested more self-control from the British. This was done through the 1923 dyarchy reforms, which was introduced after a series of protests against the fact that the British had granted self-government to India and not Burma, even though Burma was being ruled as part of the Indian Empire. This led to the formation of a legislative council under Ba Maw, a leading Western-educated politician, and a certain measure of local self-government being granted. Later in 1927, the Simon Commission allowed for the full separation of Burma from India, and even more power was placed in the nationalists' hands. The fact that Burmese nationalists enjoyed such successes in the pre-JO period proves that the JO was not a watershed. Instead, we would argue that it just helped to increase the success of pre-existing movements.

Shane and Charmaine, Group 1, Support

We support the stand that the Japanese Occupation (JO) was a watershed for Burmese nationalism because it demolished British rule, helped to expand popular participation in politics, and forged unity amongst the nationalist groups.

Before the JO, Burma was under the iron grip of British colonialism, and nationalist movements were mostly weak and disunited. They did not achieve much success, and did not pose a viable alternative to colonial rule. However, during the JO, the British were swiftly defeated and driven out of Burma. This shattered the myth of Western superiority in the minds of the Burmese, and galvanised their resolve against the return of British rule once the JO was over.

During the JO, a few Burmese politicians such as Aung San rose to prominence and were given the opportunity to be involved in the administration of the country. They were also supplied with arms by the Japanese. With this newfound strength, Aung San and Than Tun founded the Anti-Fascist Peoples' Freedom League (AFPFL) in 1943. This coalition movement positioned itself as a united front that would incorporate the various nationalist factions. By September 1944 onwards, diverse groups that included the Burma National Army, peasant unions, communists and socialists, monks from the Maha Sangha Agency, and even individual politicians from the pre-WWII period joined the AFPFL. This created Burma’s first truly national political party, a powerful movement with a strong sense of dedication to the nationalist cause. The AFPFL would prove instrumental to Burma's decolonisation process in the post-WWII period, with Aung San being the leading figure who successfully won independence from the British in 1948.

Guidelines for SAC on Burmese nationalism

Here are the guidelines for your online SAC on Burmese nationalism:

Question: "Was the Japanese Occupation a watershed for Burmese nationalism?"

Phase I: Presenting a case
1. You should already be sitting in groups of 4. Further divide your group into pairs.
2. One pair is to argue that the Japanese Occupation was a watershed for Burmese nationalism ("Support") while the other group should argue that it was not ("Challenge").
3. Take 5 minutes to brainstorm verbally in your pairs about the possible arguments that you can put forth to support your perspective.
4. Each group has 10 minutes to type out their argument in a fresh blog post. Make sure that you type in full sentences, and provide substantial elaboration and evidence for your points. Please indicate your names, group number, and your stand in the post title (i.e. Shane and Charmaine, Group 1, Support)

Phase II: Critique
1. Each pair now has 10 minutes to read through the other pair's work and leave comments on the respective blog posts. Please refer to the rubrics given when critiquing each other's work, and remember to maintain good netiquette in your comments.
2. Once the comments are posted, each pair has 10 minutes to respond to them. Once again, remember to maintain good netiquette in your replies.

Phase III: Role Reversal
1. The pairs are now to conduct a role reversal, i.e. "support" will now take the perspective of "challenge", and vice versa. You now have 5 minutes to brainstorm verbally in your pairs about your new argument. Try as far as   possible to include points which the earlier pair did not bring up, or to fill in any gaps in elaboration or evidence which they had. You need to present an equally strong case for this perspective as you did for your first one.
2. Type out your new argument as a comment in the earlier pair's original post. You have 10 minutes to do so.

Phase IV: Synthesis of perspectives
1. Now that both sides have experienced viewing this issue from both perspectives, all members can come together to discuss the best way to synthesize and integrate the two different sets of arguments. Once you have arrived at this joint position, take 5 minutes to type it out into a fresh blog post. You do not need elaboration or evidence for this; just the stand/"topic sentence" will do. Please also indicate your group number in the title.

Phase V: Class discussion and wrap-up