Comments on: Michael Moynihan on Cumings, NYT http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/02/03/michael-moynihan-on-cumings-nyt/ Korea... in Blog Format Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:05:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Wedge http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/02/03/michael-moynihan-on-cumings-nyt/#comment-1810 Wedge Sat, 07 Feb 2004 14:49:16 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=507#comment-1810 Have you guys read Michael Breen's new book on North Korea? I haven't, but he promises it's not a whitewash and he doesn't blame America for all the North's ills, like Cumings does. Somewhere along the way I read a WSJ review of this Cumings monstrosity and he pretty much blames America for whatever few bad things do exist north of the 38th. History will not look kindly upon this man, just like Walter Duranty is getting his comeuppance. Have you guys read Michael Breen’s new book on North Korea? I haven’t, but he promises it’s not a whitewash and he doesn’t blame America for all the North’s ills, like Cumings does.

Somewhere along the way I read a WSJ review of this Cumings monstrosity and he pretty much blames America for whatever few bad things do exist north of the 38th. History will not look kindly upon this man, just like Walter Duranty is getting his comeuppance.

]]> By: Horace Jeffery Hodges http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/02/03/michael-moynihan-on-cumings-nyt/#comment-1809 Horace Jeffery Hodges Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:40:01 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=507#comment-1809 My articles on the Korean issue of reunification haven't come out yet. Most of my genuinely scholarly articles deal more with religion than politics, but I'm increasingly moving toward political themes. Here's a less scholarly effort of mine that combines religious and political issues: <a href="http://www.hanshin.ac.kr/~hih/research/essc_18.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.hanshin.ac.kr/~hih/research/essc_18.html</a> It was a presentation that I gave on the anniversary of 9/11, and some Koreans didn't like what I had to say -- though nobody really engaged with the central issue that I raised. A more narrowly focused article of mine on religion appears here: <a href="http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/John/SBL1999-HodgesA.html" rel="nofollow">http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/John/SBL1999-HodgesA.html</a> Other then these, there's not much online. Jeffery Hodges My articles on the Korean issue of reunification haven’t come out yet. Most of my genuinely scholarly articles deal more with religion than politics, but I’m increasingly moving toward political themes. Here’s a less scholarly effort of mine that combines religious and political issues:

http://www.hanshin.ac.kr/~hih/.....sc_18.html

It was a presentation that I gave on the anniversary of 9/11, and some Koreans didn’t like what I had to say — though nobody really engaged with the central issue that I raised.

A more narrowly focused article of mine on religion appears here:

http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/.....dgesA.html

Other then these, there’s not much online.

Jeffery Hodges

]]> By: slim http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/02/03/michael-moynihan-on-cumings-nyt/#comment-1808 slim Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:24:36 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=507#comment-1808 Thanks Jeffery, I should have mentioned your reference to Mr Kotkin over on the original blogsite. I commend you for sensible, insightful and civil commentary on this board. (I know you mentioned a few days back having several forthcoming monographs, but..) Can you point me/us to recent publications of yours that may be out there? Thanks Jeffery, I should have mentioned your reference to Mr Kotkin over on the original blogsite. I commend you for sensible, insightful and civil commentary on this board. (I know you mentioned a few days back having several forthcoming monographs, but..) Can you point me/us to recent publications of yours that may be out there?

]]> By: Horace Jeffery Hodges http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/02/03/michael-moynihan-on-cumings-nyt/#comment-1807 Horace Jeffery Hodges Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:54:34 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=507#comment-1807 I also think that Kotkin's a different type than Cumings. Although I cannot say that I know Kotkin well, I studied with him at Berkeley in the 80s, when we were both grinding through the doctoral program in history, and my impression was that he was far more conservative than other Berkeley students. He openly criticized the Soviet Union and the corrupt ruling elite, i.e., the Nomenklatura. (I learned that word from him.) I don't know why he was chosen to review this book on North Korea, though, for it's not his area of expertise. He has co-edited a book with Bruce Elleman on Mongolia: *Mongolia in the 20th Century: Landlocked Cosmopolitan* (Marmot,take note), so perhaps he has some interest in this issue. He's also married to a Korean woman. But his review was rather banal, quoting and summarizing when it should have been critiquing. So, I understand why his review was read as a positive one. Jeffery Hodges I also think that Kotkin’s a different type than Cumings. Although I cannot say that I know Kotkin well, I studied with him at Berkeley in the 80s, when we were both grinding through the doctoral program in history, and my impression was that he was far more conservative than other Berkeley students. He openly criticized the Soviet Union and the corrupt ruling elite, i.e., the Nomenklatura. (I learned that word from him.) I don’t know why he was chosen to review this book on North Korea, though, for it’s not his area of expertise. He has co-edited a book with Bruce Elleman on Mongolia: *Mongolia in the 20th Century: Landlocked Cosmopolitan* (Marmot,take note), so perhaps he has some interest in this issue. He’s also married to a Korean woman. But his review was rather banal, quoting and summarizing when it should have been critiquing. So, I understand why his review was read as a positive one.

Jeffery Hodges

]]> By: slim http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/02/03/michael-moynihan-on-cumings-nyt/#comment-1806 slim Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:50:07 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=507#comment-1806 Although I share the view that informs the spirit in which Moynihan wrote, I think he is off-base on the book reviewer Kotkin. The review isn't as critical as a serious (non-leftist) Korea watcher might be, but it doesn't endorse Cumming's odd views. Kotkin seems to get the current context of the nuclear crisis entirely wrong, however. He sems to be an odd choice to review the book. Although I share the view that informs the spirit in which Moynihan wrote, I think he is off-base on the book reviewer Kotkin. The review isn’t as critical as a serious (non-leftist) Korea watcher might be, but it doesn’t endorse Cumming’s odd views. Kotkin seems to get the current context of the nuclear crisis entirely wrong, however. He sems to be an odd choice to review the book.

]]> By: usinkorea http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/02/03/michael-moynihan-on-cumings-nyt/#comment-1805 usinkorea Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:35:05 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=507#comment-1805 Bruce is evil. He gets too much credit, and when people like the NYT and many humanities departments give him a voice without much critical commentary on him, they compound the problem. Is he a good scholar? Even here I have trouble. I recommend people read his history of the Korean War. He has fantastic skills for a scholar especially for Korea given his linguistic skills. He is even has a good writing style. But he is still evil, and even in this work that has made his career, his bias comes through clearly enough --- but how come that part doesn't get discussed in the classes I've taken where he is required reading??? Have you see the movie Broadcast News? It's a good movie. Anyway, at one point, Albert Brooks, the dumpy looking television news guy who is in love with Holly Hunter, the producer who has just told him she is in love the the William Hurt, the good looking but genetically ignorant up-n-coming news anchor of the future ---- the next Peter Jennings --- Brooks says something very similar to this about the William Hurt character : "He's the devil. No. Listen to me. I'm not just saying that. Look, what do you think the devil is going to be like when he comes? He's not going to be all red with big pointy horns? No! The devil is going to look just like me and you. He's going to look like us, talk like us, walk like us, and get us to lower our standards - just a little bit -" I think that fits well here.... More people, especially in the press, should point out the darker side of Bruce that doesn't get aired enough... Bruce is evil.

He gets too much credit, and when people like the NYT and many humanities departments give him a voice without much critical commentary on him, they compound the problem.

Is he a good scholar? Even here I have trouble. I recommend people read his history of the Korean War. He has fantastic skills for a scholar especially for Korea given his linguistic skills. He is even has a good writing style. But he is still evil, and even in this work that has made his career, his bias comes through clearly enough — but how come that part doesn’t get discussed in the classes I’ve taken where he is required reading???

Have you see the movie Broadcast News?

It’s a good movie. Anyway, at one point, Albert Brooks, the dumpy looking television news guy who is in love with Holly Hunter, the producer who has just told him she is in love the the William Hurt, the good looking but genetically ignorant up-n-coming news anchor of the future —- the next Peter Jennings —

Brooks says something very similar to this about the William Hurt character : “He’s the devil. No. Listen to me. I’m not just saying that. Look, what do you think the devil is going to be like when he comes? He’s not going to be all red with big pointy horns? No! The devil is going to look just like me and you. He’s going to look like us, talk like us, walk like us, and get us to lower our standards - just a little bit -”

I think that fits well here….

More people, especially in the press, should point out the darker side of Bruce that doesn’t get aired enough…

]]>