Imperialism Debates Project Manual

1 | T h e I m p e r i a l i s m D e b a t e s
SOCIAL SCIENCE 2: ASIAN STUDIES
SEMESTER 2 – THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN ASIA
THE IMPERIALISM DEBATES
Mock trials on the legacy of European imperialism in Asia
By Martin Benedict S. Perez
Philippine Science High School, Main Campus
PROJECT MANUAL / November 2010 revision
THE AGE OF IMPERIALISM was a turbulent time for the Asian continent.
Change was the status quo of the time as states gave way to
colonies, proud empires became protectorates, and whole
civilizations splintered into spheres of influence – all under the sway
of the many competitive mercantile powers from Europe.
In order to survive, whole societies had to reform themselves; that is,
if they even had a say in the matter. Nonetheless, their
transformations were subject to rigorous debate, conflict, and even
war. Thus, your objective in this activity is to revive those arguments
in a modern setting while staying true to the ethos of the time.
Mimicking a court room drama, your class will work with primary
source documents and re-enactments of historical figures in order to
make your case.
This guide is written for students of SS2 Asian Studies undertaking
this activity for their lesson on Imperialism. This is a comprehensive
guide detailing the time table, tasks and roles, grading system, and
activity mechanics.
SECTION A: PROJECT TIME TABLE
(Note: This revision refers to SY 2010/11, and the sections here refer to the classes of
the author. A similar time table is recommended for others adopting this activity.)
TRIAL PROPER
Section Preparation Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Verdict
Camia Nov 8 to 24 25 Nov 30 Nov 2 Dec 6 Dec
Champaca Nov 8 to 24 26 Nov 1 Dec 3 Dec 6 Dec
Dahlia Nov 9 to 24 26 Nov 30 Nov 2 Dec 3 Dec
Ilang-Ilang Nov 9 to 24 26 Nov 30 Nov 1 Dec 3 Dec
Jasmin Nov 8 to 24 25 Nov 1 Dec 2 Dec 6 Dec
All trials will be held at the SHB Seminar Room.
TRIAL EXAMS AND REQUIREMENTS
Section Pre-trial Test
(LT, part 1)
Post-trial Paper
(LT, part 2)*
Camia 23 Nov 7 Dec
Champaca 24 Nov 7 Dec
Dahlia 25 Nov 4 Dec
Ilang-Ilang 24 Nov 4 Dec
Jasmin 24 Nov 7 Dec
*Due in my e-mail 24 hours after delivery of verdict.
Notes on the Time Table
The preparation period is divided into two main phases: (a) the introductory
lectures and (b) the pre-trial proper. The introductory lectures consist of four
talks that cover the fundamental concepts essential to understanding the
topic. In addition, there will be discussions of Mughal India, Qing China, and
Tokugawa Japan that will provide the necessary context for the trial proper.
The pre-trial proper is when the lawyers build their case with the client, and
together they gather witnesses to solidify their position. During this time
they are free to research at the library and consult with the teacher.
In the event of class suspensions or holidays, the scheduled session will be
moved to the next available date. It is imperative however, that all verdicts
are delivered before the SS2 3rd
quarter periodic examination.

SECTION B: STUDENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
I. JUDGE
The judges will be responsible for hearing out their assigned case and
delivering a verdict – guilty or not guilty – at the end. Before the trial, they
are expected to study both sides of the case and assist the teacher in
preparing the teams debating the topic. During the trial, they are expected
to know all the rules and facilitate the flow of the activity. The delivery of
their verdict will signal the end of the activity. At this point, judges present
their evaluation of the teams and explain the decision in detail.
II. LAWYERS
There will be two attorneys per side, and together they constitute one law
firm. Their primary task is to represent their side and argue their way to
victory. For prosecutors, their goal is to prove the guilt of the defendant by
presenting as many evidences and compelling witnesses as possible. For the
defense, their goal is to protect their client and discredit the case made by
the prosecution.
As students, lawyers are free to study and simulate the rules of court as
closely as possible, particularly when it comes to admitting evidence and
raising objections. Lawyers are also expected to assist their clients and
witnesses in developing their case.
III. CLIENTS
Clients are the key historical persons involved in the case. Not only were
these figures extremely influential in how events unfolded, but they had
relationships and linkages which students can exploit to find additional
witnesses. The following are the six historical persons around which the
cases and sides are anchored upon.
Prosecution Defense
Indian Mutiny Charles Canning Mangal Pandey
100 Days Reform Kang Youwei Empress Cixi
Satsuma Rebellion Saigo Takamori Emperor Meiji
Clients are free to pick the firm to represent them, and together they form a
triad. This team will then strategize, build their case, and recruit one or two
witnesses to their cause. Clients are expected to testify during the trial.
IV. WITNESSES
Teams can have another one or two witnesses called to the stand. This is a
highly strategic role. Students playing witnesses are free to adopt any
relevant historical character of their choice, and can thus be used to surprise
the opposing side. Note however, a student can only be a witness once;
playing multiple characters for multiple trials will not be allowed.
Witnesses, and clients too, will be expected to cosplay (costume-play) their
character. While I will not encourage heavy spending for the costumes, I do
ask that effort be put into it. What’s more important though is that you get
their character right. Hence, research and get in touch with primary sources
and accounts in order to get a feel of the character. What is his temper?
How did he view the world? What is his opinion about his opponent?
Etcetera.
Excellent witnesses are key to winning the trial.
V. JURY *
All students in the audience for the trial are automatically part of the jury.
They will keep track of the arguments of both sides and suggest a winner by
the end of the session. Their inputs will be kept confidential throughout and
the judge will only be given some idea of what the jury says before he or she
delivers the final verdict. The jury verdict may or may not be the same
decision of the judge, as he or she is free to decide the case in any which
way.
* This is not a jury in the real sense of the term, but a simulated one. Their
decision may not necessarily be the outcome of the trial, unlike in the real
world where it is. Nevertheless, the jury will be given a worksheet which they
will use in tracking the debate and this sheet will be equivalent to one 20-
point quiz upon submission.

SECTION C: GRADING AND REQUIREMENTS
The following rubric will be my guide in grading your individual performance. The credit points on the left total 4.25 or A+ (110%). Exemplary performance in any
category can merit you additional credits that can lift your grade to an A++ (125%).
Pts JUDGES LAWYERS CLIENTS WITNESSES
PRIMARY TASKS
1.0 Delivers a ruling that is well
explained, justified, and thorough.
Makes their case in a clear,
convincing, and thorough manner.
1.0 Facilitates the trial efficiently, sticks
to the rules of court, and promotes
fairness throughout the trial.
Shows knowledge of the rules of
court by assisting witnesses in their
testimonies, cross examining, and
admitting evidence into court.
Has mastery of their assigned
person, from character and
personality to look and habits. Must
avoid impeachment at all costs.
Has mastery of their chosen person,
from character and personality to
look and habits. Must avoid
impeachment at all costs.
SECONDARY
TASKS AND
REQUIREMENTS
0.5 Studies the rules of court and both
sides of the case independently.
Will submit a pre-trial essay that
summarizes the merits of the case.
(Pre-trial test)
Studies the rules of court and
adheres to them throughout the
entire trial. Lawyers will take a test
to determine their familiarity with
the rules. (Pre-trial test)
Studies the character in order to
represent him/her faithfully. Writes
an Affidavit summarizing their case
and gives a copy to the judge and
lawyers. (Pre-trial test)
Studies the character in order to
represent him/her faithfully. Writes
an Affidavit summarizing their case
and gives a copy to the judge and
lawyers. (Pre-trial test)
0.5 Assists the teams in their
preparation by ensuring they have
credible arguments to make. (To be
observed during the pre-trial.)
Assists their client and witnesses in
preparing for the trial. They can go
through the major talking points and
arguments together.
Works with the lawyers and
witnesses in forming a compelling
and winnable case.
Works with the lawyers and clients
in forming a compelling and
winnable case.
0.5 Submits to the teacher a hard copy
of their verdict on the day of
delivery. Will also submit an
evaluation of the two teams and a
summary of the trial. (Post-trial
paper)
Submits to the teacher a narrative
report of how the trial went. This
report encompasses their thoughts
and insights from their preparation
to their actual performance. (Post-
trial paper)
trial paper)
trial paper)
QUALITY
INDICATORS
0.25 Shows confidence, authority, and
poise in the conduct of the trial.
Shows confidence, authority, and
poise in the conduct of the trial.
Acts convincingly, reverently, and
communicates clearly.
Acts convincingly, reverently, and
communicates clearly.
0.25 Shows initiative and independence
of mind in the preparation days
leading up to the trial.
Shows initiative, concern for the
team, and focus in the preparation
days leading up to the trial.
Costume is economical yet of
impressive quality and creativity.
Shows initiative and hard work.
Costume is economical yet of
impressive quality and creativity.
Shows initiative and hard work.
0.25 Submits all paper requirements
completely and on time.
Submits all paper requirements
4.50 4.20 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.00 1.75 1.5 1.00 < 1.00
A++ A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D F F2
Your score here will be your project grade for the 3rd
quarter and will be equivalent to 40% of your Class Standing.

SECTION D: SUMMARY OF TOPICS AND CLIENTS
Trial 1 THE INDIAN MUTINY OF 1857
The Sepoys are charged with mutiny and insurrection against the British
crown, whereas the Sepoys assert that they were fighting for independence.
In this trial, the prosecutors are the British as represented by Charles
Canning, the Governor General of India at the time. Standing accused is
Mangal Pandey, a hero who rose up during the early stages of the rebellion.
Therefore, the objective of the prosecution is to charge the Sepoys with
mutiny. The defense will have to argue how that is not the case.
Trial 2 THE FAILURE OF 100 DAYS OF REFORM
The 100 Days of Reform have failed to transform China into a modern state,
and there is much blame to be thrown around. Reformists, led by Kang
Youwei, charge the conservatives of being beholden to old ways and to
their selfish interest. Those from the court of Empress Cixi contest however,
that Kang’s ideas were dangerous and he had no awareness of the
complexities of imperial rule.
Therefore, the objective of the prosecution is to pin the failure of the 100
Days of Reform on the Imperial crown. The defense will have to argue how
that is not the case.
Trial 3 THE SATSUMA REBELLION
The Meiji Restoration brought upon immense change and progress in
Japan. Its success is the envy of many other Asian civilizations struggling to
adjust to the changes brought about by the West. However, not everyone in
Japan is rejoicing. The samurai class, represented by the fiery and influential
Saigo Takamori, charge the Meiji Emperor with selling out Japan’s culture
and soul to Western ways. Moreover, his government has become corrupt
and is therefore illegitimate.
Therefore, the objective of the prosecution is to charge the Meiji
government with treason against Japan itself. The defense will have to
argue how that is not the case.
SECTION E: FLOW OF THE TRIAL
TIME COMMON PROSECUTION DEFENSE
0:00
All rise to recognize the
judge, bailiff reads out the
case and introduces the
attorneys of the two sides
0:02
Attorney 1 delivers their
opening argument
0:05
opening argument
0:08
Attorney 1 introduces
Prosecution Witness 1 and
assists in the testimony
0:12
Attorney 2 cross-examines
Prosecution Witness 1
0:15
Prosecution Witness 2 and
0:19
Prosecution Witness 2
0:22
Defense Witness 1 and
0:26
the Defense Witness 1
0:29
Defense Witness 2 and
0:33
the Defense Witness 2
0:36
Judge calls for a final
witness from either side
At this point, either side presents a third witness if they
have one. Both sides have four minutes to trade testimonies
and cross examination.
0:40
closing statement
0:42
closing statement
0:44 Judge calls for a recess

SECTION F: RULES OF COURT
This section is adapted from the Washington DC Mock Trial Program.
PART ONE – GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. Each witness is bound by the facts in their given statements. All
participants agree that their statements are signed and sworn
affidavits (a written declaration made under oath). If a witness is
asked a question on cross-examination which is not dealt with in the
witness's statement, the witness may invent an answer favorable to
that witness's position. Students are encouraged to read other
cases, materials, or articles in preparation for the mock trial.
2. If a witness testifies in contradiction of a fact in the witness
statement or invents an answer that is likely to affect the outcome of
the trial, the opposition must show this on cross-examination
through correct use of the affidavit for impeachment. This procedure
is spelled out in SPECIAL PROCEDURES.
3. Witnesses are not permitted to use notes during the trial.
4. All participants are expected to display proper courtroom decorum
and collegial sportsmanlike conduct. The decisions of the judges
with regard to rules, challenges, and all other decisions are final.
PART TWO – RULES OF EVIDENCE
To assure each side a fair trial, certain rules have been developed to govern
the types of evidence that may be introduced, as well as the manner in
which evidence may be presented. These rules are called the rules of
evidence.
The attorneys and the judge are responsible for enforcing these rules.
Before the judge can apply a rule of evidence, an attorney must ask the
judge to do so. The opposing side may object to this. When an objection is
raised, the attorney who asked the question that is being challenged will be
asked by the judge why the question was not in violation of the rules of
evidence.
(NOTE: Objections during the testimony of a witness must be made only by
the direct examining and cross-examining attorneys for that witness.)
Rule 1 – Leading Questions. A leading question is one that suggests the
answer desired by the questioner, usually by stating some facts not
previously discussed and then asking the witness to give a yes or no answer.
Example: "So, Mr. Smith, you took Ms. Jones to a movie that night, didn't
you?" Leading questions may not be asked on direct or redirect
examination. Leading questions may be used on cross-examination.
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, counsel is leading the witness."
Possible Response: "Your Honor, leading is permissible on cross-
examination," or "I'll rephrase the question." For example, the question can
be rephrased: "Mr. Smith, where did you go that night? Who did you go
with?" (This would not suggest the answer the attorney desires.)
Rule 2 – Narration. Narration occurs when the witness provides more
information than the question called for.
Example: Question - "What did you do when you reached the front door of
the house?" Witness - "I opened the door and walked into the kitchen. I
was afraid that he was in the house -- you know, he had been acting quite
strangely the day before." Witnesses' answers must respond to the
questions. A narrative answer is objectionable. Objection: "Objection, Your
Honor, the witness is narrating." Response: "Your Honor, the witness is
telling us a complete sequence of events."
Rule 3 – Relevance. Questions and answers must relate to the subject matter
of the case; this is called relevance. Questions or answers that do not relate
to the case are irrelevant.
Example: (In a traffic accident case) "Mrs. Smith, how many times have you
been married?" Irrelevant questions or answers are objectionable.
Objection: "Your Honor, this question is irrelevant to this case." Response:
"Your Honor, this series of questions will show that Mrs. Smith's first
husband was killed in an auto accident, and this fact has increased her
mental suffering in this case."
Rule 4 – Hearsay. Hearsay is something the witness has heard someone say
outside the courtroom. Also, any written statement made outside the
courtroom is hearsay.

Example: "Harry told me that he was going to visit Mr. Brown." Hearsay
evidence is objectionable. However, there are two exceptions to the
hearsay rule for purposes of the mock trial. If an exception applies, the court
will allow hearsay evidence to be introduced.
Exception: In a mock trial, hearsay evidence is allowed when the witness is
repeating a statement made directly to the witness by one of the witnesses
in the case. Hearsay is also allowed if one of the witnesses is repeating a
statement made by an individual who is no longer alive. Note that this
exception to the hearsay rule does not extend to witness testimony about
what another person heard a witness say. This is "double hearsay."
Example: Mary, the plaintiff, told me that Harry, the defendant was drunk
the night of the accident. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, this is double
hearsay." Response: "Your Honor, since Harry is the defendant, the witness
can testify to a statement he heard Harry make."
Rule 5 – Firsthand Knowledge. Witnesses must have directly seen, heard, or
experienced whatever it is they are testifying about.
Example: "I know Harry well enough to know that two beers usually make
him drunk, so I'm sure he was drunk that night, too." A lack of firsthand
knowledge is objectionable. Objection: "Your Honor, the witness has no
firsthand knowledge of Harry's condition that night." Response: "The
witness is just generally describing her usual experience with Harry."
Rule 6 – Opinions. Unless a witness is qualified as an expert in the
appropriate field, such as medicine or ballistics, the witness may not give an
opinion about matters relating to that field.
Example: (Said by a witness who is not a doctor) "The doctor put my cast on
wrong. That's why I have a limp now." Opinions are objectionable unless
given by an expert qualified in the appropriate field. As an exception to this
rule, a lay witness may give an opinion based on common experience.
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is giving an opinion."
Response: "Your Honor, the witness may answer the question because
ordinary persons can judge whether a cast was put on correctly."
Rule 7 – Opinions on the Ultimate Issue. Witnesses, including experts,
cannot give opinions on the ultimate issue of the case: the guilt or
innocence of the defendant or the liability of the parties. These are matters
for the trier of fact to decide.
Example: "I believe that Mr. Smith was negligent in driving too fast in this
case." Opinions on the ultimate issue in a case are objectionable.
Objection: "Your Honor, the witness is giving an opinion on the ultimate
issue -- the negligence of Mr. Smith." Response: "The witness is
commenting that the driver was speeding. This is not the ultimate issue in
this case."
PART THREE – SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Procedure 1 - Introduction of Documents or Physical Evidence. Sometimes
the parties wish to offer as evidence letters, affidavits, contracts, or other
documents, or even physical evidence such as a murder weapon, broken
consumer goods, etc. Special procedures must be followed before these
items can be used in trial.
Step 1: Introducing the Item for Identification
a. An attorney says to the judge, "Your Honor, I wish to have this (letter,
document, item) marked for identification as (Plaintiff's Exhibit A, Defense
Exhibit A, etc.)."
b. The attorney takes the item to the clerk, who marks it appropriately.
c. The attorney shows the item to the opposing counsel.
d. The attorney shows the item to the witness and says, "Do you recognize this
item marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit A?" Witness: "Yes." Attorney: "Can you
please identify this item?" Witness: "This is a letter I wrote to John Doe on
September 1." (Or witness gives other appropriate identification.)
e. The attorney may then proceed to ask the witness questions about the
document or item.
Step 2. Moving the Document or Item into Evidence.
a. If the attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the document or item
itself as part of the evidence and not just as testimony about it, the attorney
must ask to move the item into evidence at the end of the witness
examination. The attorney proceeds as follows:
b. The attorney says, "Your Honor, I offer this (document/item) into evidence
as Plaintiff's Exhibit A, and ask that the court so admit it."
c. Opposing counsel may look at the evidence and make objections at this
time.
d. The judge rules on whether the item may be admitted into evidence.

Procedure 2 – Impeachment. On cross-examination, an attorney wants to
show that the witness should not be believed. This is best accomplished
through a process called "impeachment," which may use one of the
following tactics:
1. asking questions about prior conduct of the witness that makes the witness'
truthfulness doubtful (e.g., "Isn't it true that you once lost a job because you
falsified expense reports?");
2. asking about evidence of certain types of criminal convictions (e.g., "You
were convicted of shoplifting, weren't you?"); or
3. showing that the witness has contradicted a prior statement, particularly the
Affidavit.
In order to impeach the witness by comparing information in the affidavit to
the witness' testimony, attorneys should use this procedure:
Step 1: Repeat the statement the witness made on direct or cross-
examination that contradicts the affidavit.
Example: "Now, Mrs. Burke, on direct examination you testified that you
were out of town on the night in question, didn't you?" (Witness responds,
"Yes.")
Step 2: Introduce the affidavit for identification, using the procedure on
admitting evidence into court.
Step 3: Ask the witness to read from his or her affidavit the part that
contradicts the statement made on direct examination. Example: "All right,
Mrs. Burke,will you read paragraph three?" (Witness reads, "Harry and I
decided to stay in town and go to the theater.")
Step 4: Dramatize the conflict in the statements. (Remember, the point of
this line of questioning is to demonstrate the contradiction in the
statements, not to determine whether Mrs. Burke was in town or out of
town.) Example: "So, Mrs. Burke, you testified that you were out of town on
the night in question, didn't you?" "Yes." "Yet, in your affidavit you said
you were in town, didn't you?" "Yes."
Procedure 3 – Qualifying an Expert. Only a witness who is qualified as an
expert may give an opinion as to scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge in the area of his/her expertise. (Note: A lay witness may give an
opinion about something related to one's common experience (see Rule 6).)
Experts cannot give opinions on the ultimate issue of the case. Before an
expert gives his/her expert opinion on a matter, the lawyer must first qualify
the expert. The lawyer asks the expert to describe factors such as schooling,
professional training, work experience and books he/she has written that
make a person an expert regarding a particular field.
SECTION G: CREDIT AND EXTRA CREDIT
Students also have several opportunities to earn extra credit in addition to
the grading scale on Section C.
1. MODEL, OUTSTANDING, AND BEST INDIVIDUAL HONORS. The
following honors are up for grabs, and each one corresponds to a +0.50 in
their final grade for the activity:
 MODEL JUDGE (only one for all sections)
 OUTSTANDING LAWYER (one per class)
 OUTSTANDING WITNESS (two per class)
 BEST CLIENT (this is per historical figure, ie. BEST MANGAL
PANDEY, BEST CHARLES CANNING, etc.)
These awards are determined through peer ratings and votes.
2. VICTORY. Winners in the mock trials will receive an incredible +1.00
advantage in the periodic exam for the quarter.
3. VOLUNTEER FOR CLERK AND BAILIFF. For each trial, the class will need
two people to volunteer for clerk and bailiff. The clerk is in charge of
labelling the evidences and keeping a record of key events and decisions in
the trial. The bailiff is in charge of administering the oath and escorting out
troublesome individuals.
Judges and lawyers are not allowed to volunteer. The rest however can,
though they cannot serve as clerk and bailiffs in their own trials for obvious
reasons.
4. JURY DUTY. All non-debating students in the class will automatically serve
as jury. They will accomplish a simple form that keeps track of arguments
and points made. This form will be counted as one quiz; each student is
expected to have accomplished two sheets by the end of the trials.

Imperialism Debates Project Manual

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (8)

Ähnlich wie Imperialism Debates Project Manual

Ähnlich wie Imperialism Debates Project Manual (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Imperialism Debates Project Manual