Well, you can’t say he didn’t take a stand:
Kang Jeong-koo, sociology professor at Dongguk University, said in a column posted yesterday on an Internet news site that the 1950-1953 Korean War should be regarded not as a “war for sovereignty usurpation” but as a “war for the great cause of unification,” a statement similar to North Korean propaganda.
“No South Korean history textbook depicts Wang Kun and Kyon Hwon as invaders. Wang is revered as a great king who worked for unification,” Kang said, advocating the communist country’s reasoning behind the war.
Wang (A.D. 877-943) was the founder of the Koryo Dynasty (A.D. 918-1392), unifying the three kingdoms split from the Silla Kingdom after defeating Kyon Kwon of Hu-Paekche.
Now, that’s fine — nobody’s going to argue that Kim Il-sung didn’t try to unify the peninsula. But wait:
In the column entitled “True Knowledge About MacArthur,” Kang claimed the three-year war could have ended in a month without the intervention of the United States.
“Without U.S. intervention, Korea would not have suffered such bloodshed and destruction. To 4 million Koreans killed during the war, the U.S. is not a lifesaver or friend but an enemy,” Kang said.
His impression of Gen. Douglas MacArthur?
“MacArthur was just a war fanatic. The Korean War was a civil war for unification. But just three days after the war broke out in June 25, 1950, the general called on the U.S. government to intervene,” he said.
If he’d just had waited a little longer…
“The favorable perception of the war maniac who caused the great tragedy to the Korean people should be scrapped. His statue should also be destroyed,” he added.
Hey, I’m all in favor of critical opinion of Gen. MacArthur, about whom many uncomplimentary things could be said. Although it becomes slightly more difficult to do when you spend much of your time eulogizing Kim il-sung, who as Dalian pointed out, started the damn war in the first place. It’s also ironic that at man who would go to a country that’s literally a nation of statues and say nothing (check that: he did say something — “Let’s reunify the country by upholding the Mangyongdae spirit!”) — should find one statue in Incheon so odious. In fact, what I don’t get is if he finds the North so damn lovable, why didn’t he just stay?
If you read Korean, Kang’s comments provoked a lot of news and commentary — most of it decidedly negative. But why read what other people said he said when you can read his column for yourself. Personally, I found this part — which I’m not going to translate — particularly amusing:
??????????????? ???????? ????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ???? ?????????????? ???????. ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????? ??????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ??????????? ????????? ????????????.
????3????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????????????? ????????. ?????????????? ????????? ????????? ???????????????? ???????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????????? ?????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ????????????(All persons will obey promptly all my orders and orders issued under my authority. Acts of resistance to the occupying forces or any acts which may disturb public peace and safety will be punished severely).
????5????? ???????????????????(during the military control???? ???????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ???????????) ??????????????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ????????. ??????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ????????.
?????????? ??????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ???????????????. ???????? ???????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????????????????????? ??????????? ???? ????????????.
????????????????????????????! ???????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????????. ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????…. ??????????????????????????? ???????????????! ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????? ???????. ???????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????. ???????????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ???????????????????? ??????? ???????. … ?????????????????? ???????????? ????????????? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ????????????? ???????????????. ??????????? ????????????????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????? ????????. ???????????? ???????????????? ????????!(????????????? ????, ?????????????????? ???????? 1????108, 105).
???? ?????????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????. ???????????? ???????????????? ???????? ?????????????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ??????????????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????????? ???? ???????????. ??????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????.
Oh, those lovable Soviet occupation forces. I know one scholar who could probably offer commentary on that — I hope he’s reading.
Before we rush out an blame the Korean educational system for this, let me point out that Prof. Kang did his grad work at the University of Wisconsin — Madison.
My disagreement with Kang’s views aside, I do wish to say — truthfully — that he does deserve credit for taking a clear stand, much like former Korea University professor Hanh Sung-jo did when he wrote a piece in Japan’s Sankei Shimbun praising Japanese colonial rule. Of course, I seriously doubt Prof. Kang will be pressed to step down from his position at Dongguk University like Hanh was, but I guess that’s the way things work.
26 Comments
So Kim Il Sung was a statesman working for unification, and MacArthur was a ??war manic.? MacArthur did ask to use nukes, but he didn?t start the war. Oh well.
I met plenty of Korean in grad school that were the typical anti-American, Korea-nationalists, blaming the U.S. for just about everything that ever happened to Korea. They were especially bitter that they felt they needed American academic credentials in order to get ahead in Korea, as if that is America?s fault. Despite their feelings toward the U.S. and Americans in general, several of them made sure to take advantage of being in the U.S. with their wives and had children that were U.S. citizens. Not all, but quite a few. If in Korea most would have waited until after their studies were finished.
I should be well used to the hypocrisy and illogical foundation of anti-Americanism of the majority of Korean academics (and sadly most young Koreans), but it?s still disappointing to hear about. Speaking to them about that is about like speaking about fan-death ? most usually not much use.
I’d like to thank Kang for finally just coming out and saying it so there’s no confusion anymore as to what he’s really thinking.
I don’t think people’s comissar of sociology Kang particularly came out with this column, since as far as I’ve seen he has supported the DPRK stance in virtually every issue.
(What’s that flag in Richardson’s comment.)
The problem is that the U.S. universities including the University of Wisconsin ? Madison give the phD degrees easily to the foreign students. The universities know these non-English speakers will go back to where they came from and make money granting half-baked degrees to these foreign nationals.
Then well-connected jokers like Dr.Kang comes back, flashes his American degree and says most ridiculous things. And, Korean students think these garbages are the cutting-edge knowledge.
Talk about American emperialism.
General MacArthur saved South Korea. With no Mac, there had been no South Korea. All Koreans would have been under the Great Leader, starving to death.
Dr. Kang could not have studied in the U.S. He would have died premature death in a labor camp(his parents are from the South) due to malnutrition.
Instead, he comes to the U.S. and get some activist lingo from a former hippie and now he supports the North Korea?
Starve him to death!
Oh, those lovable Soviet occupation forces. I know one scholar who could probably offer commentary on that ? I hope he?s reading.
Here, here… Actually, September and October were very bad times, and Professor Kang can easily ask every single North Korea who is older than 70, to listen to countless stories of rape and plunder committed by the Russians in late 1945. I do not think he will find the same number of similar stories about the Americans. As a matter of fact, many Soviet officers were outraged and petitioned to do something, but a majority chose to turn a blind eye or even take some booty for themselves (wristwatches being especially popuilar). By late October harsh measures were finally taken - “harsh measures” mean shooting rapists in front of their units, and order was restored, to some degree (I published somewhere statistics from later days which show that things were not rosy still). In general, it was not as bad as in Germany, but it was really ugly - and from what I heard about the US occupation, Americans behaved far better.
But there is another dimension. The actual Soviet control over the emerging NK regime was very minute and very restrictive. Until 1948 at least, even speeches to be delivered at important meetings by the NK officials had to be edited/approved by the Soviet political officers (can you imagine Syngman Rhee looking for Gen. Hodge to edit his speech?). In few weeks I hope to submit an article to Woodrow Wilson Center where I will publish some more documents demonstrating the level of control. But the great care was taken by both the Soviets and local regime to hide this control. The Americans did “occupation” in the classical sense of the word. The Soviets, after first few weeks of chaos and lawlessness, began to do a revolution, and this revolution should appear genuine and local.
The trick worked, and nowadays the SK Left wants to believe that the “NK revolution” was authentic and national. It’s funny sometimes. I just read a general book on NK history authored by people whom I have no reasons to consider ignorant. The authors spent some ten pages describing the NK land reform in 1946, telling how wonderful and progressive it was. But no reference to the fact that land reform was prepared entirely by the Soviet experts, with almost no involvement of the Koreans - and since the relevant papers and documents have been published some 5-6 years ago (in Korean), I do not think that these people are not aware of this. It simply does not fit into their world view: “the SK regime was created by the manipulating US imperialists, while the NK regime was a product of the local revolution, only protected and cared for by those loving and sensitive Russians”. I suspect that in future, when the ugly deeds of Kim Il Song and his people will be exposed, the Korean Left will make 180 degree turn, and start blaming only those foreigners for the regime. Actually, Moscow planted seeds of Stalinism, but the soil proved to be very fertile as well. If one needs to find a side to blame, both Moscow teachers and Pyongyang disciples should answer for (this is a figure of speech, of course: all those people are safely dead by now, and nobody answer for anything in history).
There were some Communists under the Japanese rule. They went to China and fought other Korean who opposed their idea of “Perfect world”.
However, when the Russians came into NK, these fools were disarmed and told to march to PyongYang with no food given. They marched in perfect formation believing they were building a paradise. Most of them died of hunger on the way.
The Russian-backed Communists headed by Kim IlSung, who was basically unkown person till Russians picked him, killed off these purists.
Fools die, in any culture and in any situation.
given the emphasis that kang gives to a relatively blood free unification. its suprising that he hasn’t mentioned the overlooked possibility of the great leaders in the north inviting the SK government to take over the whole peninsula peacfully. I guess unification is only acceptable if its under a far left regime.
But there is another dimension. The actual Soviet control over the emerging NK regime was very minute and very restrictive.
[...]
But the great care was taken by both the Soviets and local regime to hide this control. The Americans did ?occupation?? in the classical sense of the word. The Soviets, after first few weeks of chaos and lawlessness, began to do a revolution, and this revolution should appear genuine and local.
How do you think Charles Armstrong’s North Korean Revolution will stand the test of time and new research? It’s been a while since I’ve browsed through it, but I don’t recall the Soviets playing too big a role there.
I am fearful about how Korean nationalism will shape their interpretation of history in times to come. It seems like tenuous facts here are ready accepted if they fit the nationalist agenda of many Koreans today.
The danger is that their reinterpretation is coercing young Koreans into a sympathetic and romanticised view of the North. This could end up destabilising the South as the upcoming generation in Korea will have a lot of voting power.
I think this is the reason why the North needs to be pressurised into reform sooner rather than later. I also think the focus should be on getting information into North Korea rather than by military action and threats.
The lesson to be learned from Iraq in this regard is that you can’t depend on local people to accept the help of a country readily about which they have been recieving negative propanganda for a long period of time.
It won’t help to repair any damage done by the professor amongst credulous ROK citizens who read or hear of his remarks — but still, the following needs to be stated for the record here.
The US military occupation of the ROK had ended in 1949. All US military occupation forces had been removed that year, and only a US military advisory group remained in the ROK to advise the military of the independent ROK government of President Syngman Rhee.
I’m sure that this US military advisory group had a relationship to the US Army Headquarters in Japan — but, it would have been only one that allowed it to receive needed US logistic and administrative support — NOT the receipt of policy guidance.
On 25 June 1950 Korea was no longer (and hadn’t been, for over a year) part of MacArthur’s formal command jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction was an issue to be decided by the Pentagon and the Truman administration.
How to respond to the military situation in the ROK, immediately following the invasion of 25 June 1950, was a decision strictly (and only) for US President Truman (advised of course by his cabinet (Sec of State and Sec of Defense), and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (the “Pentagon”).
The language of MacArthur’s cables to the JCS during the initial invasion make this clear; I don’t recall it exactly, or have a link to them handy now, but any biography of MacArthur, or any account of the Korean War, will indicate this (as long as they are accounts not tainted by blatant pro-Communist and anti-American bias).
A few days after the invasion started, MacArthur made a quick flight to the ROK (only a few hours) to personally observe the situation. I think this is the origin of the MacArthur recommendation that Professor Kang refers to — the one the Prof says was made 3 days after the invasion started. (MacArthur’s views on what do do about Korea were of course solicited by the JCS and by Truman, and MacArthur’s cables were anxiously awaited in Washington).
After watching fleeing columns of ROK troops and civilian refugees, KacArthur cabled Washington with his impressions; as I recall, the language of that cable is extant. It will make it abundantly clear (to anyone who cares to try to understand how the US government really works) that whatever decision about US involvement had to be made was one for Truman’s final decision — alone.
The issue of war and peace and life and death in the ROK — in June 1950 — were the primary responsiblity of the ROK government and the US President.
Not MacArthur! Though MacArthur was the only possible commander to designate with overall theater responsibility — but only once the decision by Truman to render military assistance was made (to include the commitment of US ground forces)
The formal decision to use US troops to stop the Communists was made following earlier, more limited decsions by Truman (such as Truman’s authorization to MacArthur to use US combat aircraft to attack any NorK forces interfering with the evacuation of US personnel from the ROK, such as the aforementioned US military advisors and the embassy staff).
The subsequent dispute between Truman and MacArthur, leading to MacArthur’s relief in April 1951, had nothing to do with the immediate circumstances surrounding the origin of the war. I suspect the professor of extrapolating the famous MacArthur-Truman dispute backwards into the circumstances surrounding the beginning of the war in June 1950 for his own political purposes.
I hope somebody will translate Professor Kang’s exact language into English, and post it somewhere eventually. I’d be very interested to see what Kang says about Truman (if anything).
Truman was of course a Democrat, while MacArthur was a Republican who was well-known to harbor Presidential ambitions (MacArthur actually tried a run for the Presidency in 1952, competing in his home state of Wisconsin’s primary if I remember correctly. I also think he spoke at the Republican convention that year, but of course his candidacy was a pathetic one and went nowhere).
Gosh, do you suppose the current state of US politics has had an influence on Professor Kang’s seemingly selective memory?
Was it you, Professor Lankov, who posted just recently the “joke” about the dilemma of a Stalinist historian? Something along the lines of how such a historian had a real problem, because he could never be sure exactly what it was that had happened yesterday when tomorrow came?
I’ve gotta find that remark again, wherever I just read it, and bookmark it. Ideally, someone will translate it into Korean and mail it to Professor Kang; it deserves a place of honor, framed and hanging on his faculty office wall!
(BTW, if anyone is interested in exploring the decision for war by the North further, see the current excellent posting by Professor Lankov at North Korea Zone. In particular his current entry regarding the relatively unknown role played by the Soviet ambassador in the administration of North Korea after 1945).
Paul, I doubt Kang said much of anything about Truman, since it is not Truman’s statue in Inchon that they are talking about removing.
Just as Ito Hirobumi is considered a greater Japanese villain than Katsura Taro because a Korean patriot managed to kill former Resident-General Ito and not annexation architect (?) Katsura, MacArthur easily becomes a greater lightning rod for both pro- and anti-American sentiment because he was on the ground here in Korea and his statue is standing in a major park in one of Korea’s major port cities.
Why do I have the feeling that Kang will soon be appointed to the Unification Ministry?
Although the newspapers have been playing up the “growing left” of late, I have a feeling in two years we’ll see a shift of sorts.
So many of those who voted for Noh are unhappy, not just because he apparently betrayed their ideals but because he basically sucks!
While many Koreans appear to be far too apt to follow the trend, we can always hope that the pendulum will swing back the other way.
A wonderful response, Prof. Lankov. It brings back memories. I read your book and Prof. Armstrong’s in the same week for my seminar last year. I found it highly useful to look at them together, and you’re gracious to suggest that some truth might be found in both approaches.
Too many writers in Korea confuse the concept of free speech with the freedom to make an ass of yourself.
A Korean responded to Dr.Kang’s garbage.
1. ???????? ??? ? ??????? ??? ??? ???????
?? ?????? ?????, ?? ??????? ?????.
(Dr. Kang, go live in North Korea. I see who you are supporting. You are an innocent fool.)
2. ???????? ???? ?????????????? ?????? 1950??
???????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????.
??????? 90%? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ????????
???????? ????????? ?????? ??? ????!
???? ?? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ????????
??????????? ??????? ????????????? ???????.
(If China did not interfere, Koreas would have been united before the Christmas of 1950. 90% of Korea was under SK’s control and zero resistance of NK soldiers! Without Chinese interference, there had been no starvation in NK or military dictatorship in SK.)
3. ???????? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????
?????????? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ???????
(Dr. Kang, you are praising Kim Ilsung who stopped the transmission of electricity to the South and thereby plunged SK to total darkness in 1946. How can Kim,who betrayed his own people, be a positive influence toward unification?
My additional comment: This fact of discontinuation of electrical transmission is interesting. If NK accepts SK’s proposal of supplying electricity to the north, SK can do exact thing Kim had done. I like the Rho’s proposal of supplying electricity to the North Korea. It is like having NK by the balls.
Although I might want to agree with you baduk, I really don’t think this current administration would do anything volitile towards the north.
While from the outside it may see mthat the South “has the North…” the truth is, I can quickly see the North turning it around and saying ANY decrease in supplied electricity would result in WAR!
BTW, what does it take to have the good Dr. visit your blog Marmot? Do you give him cookies?
The real debate is, is junggoo insane or just stupid?
Junggooneun mot mallyuh.
Ref #17 above (Baduk’s citing of the letter from an ROK citizen about North Korean cutoff of electricity during the occupation period):
Some of you here, previously unacquainted with the history, might find the following as interesting as I did when I first read it (a year or so back, but the essence of it managed to lodge in my brain, not an easy task these days).
Especially interesting given the current (ie last 15 years or so, since the fall of the USSR) importance of petroleum products and electrical power to North Korea.
First quote (”punch” lines are at the very end):
“…[In 1945] the new dividing line [ie 38th Parallel between US and Soviet zones of occupation]…The two areas, North and South Korea, complemented each other both agriculturally and industrially. South Korea was mainly a farming area, where fully two-thirds of the inhabitants worked the land. It possessed three times as much irrigated rice land as the northern area, and furnished food for the north. But North Korea furnished the fertilizer for the southern rice fields, and the largest nitrogenous fertilizer plant in the Far East was in Hungnam. Although North Korea also had a high level of agricultural production, it was deficient in some crops. The barrier imposed serious adverse effects on both zones.
South Korea had in 1940 turned out about 74 percent of Korea’s light consumer goods and processed products. Its industry consisted of some large and many small plants producing textiles, rubber products, hardware, and ceramics. Many of these plants had been built to process raw materials from North Korea.
North Korea, a largely mountainous region, held valuable mineral deposits, especially coal. Excellent hydroelectric plants, constructed during the last ten years of Japanese domination, ranked with the largest and best in the world. Because of its power resources, North Korea housed almost all of Korea’s heavy industry, including several rolling mills and a highly developed chemical industry. In 1940, North Korea produced 86 percent of Korea’s heavy manufactured goods. The only petroleum processing plant in the country, a major installation designed to serve all of Korea, was located in the north [!!!], as were seven of eight cement plants. Almost all the electrical power used by South Korea came from the north [!!!], as did iron, steel, wood pulp, and industrial chemicals needed by South Korea’s light industry.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/pd-c-01.htm
Also:
According to chapter 2 of this same source, Baduk, the actual “cutoff” of electricity by the Soviet controlled North (evidently it was actually “only” a 50% reduction) took place in November 1947 (rather than 1946). It was directly connected with the “problem” (as seen by the North) of elections (at least, those elections not held under Communist control).
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/pd-c-02.htm
Note the “multilateral” attempts by the US back then to solve the problem of Korea in the UN, and to give the ROK its full independence — an independence unblemished by the corrupting boots of soldiers of the US hegemon. Well, no good deed by the US ever goes unpunished, eh Professor Kang? Ah, those Americans, no matter what they do (and did) they just can’t help but screw things up for Korea and the rest of the world.
2nd quote: “…after two years of occupation, and with no arrangement for unification and independence of Korea yet in sight, the United States placed the problem before the General Assembly of the United Nations on 23 September 1947.
In a draft resolution on 16 October 1947 the United States recommended that both zones of Korea hold elections before 31 March 1948 under observation of the United Nations. A United Nations temporary commission would view the elections and supervise the formation of a national government. When a unified Korean government had thus been established, foreign troops were to withdraw.
During consideration of this proposal in the General Assembly, the USSR representative protested that the United Nations had no jurisdiction over Korea and that foreign troops must withdraw before creation of a unified Korean government. His counterproposal was that the occupying powers immediately withdraw their troops. This was rejected. When the General Assembly, on 14 November 1947, approved a resolution supporting the United States proposal and establishing the U.N. Temporary Commission on Korea, Russia refused to take part in the U.N. commission.
The Russians did more than refuse to co-operate. The main source of hydroelectric power for South Korea was located in their zone, and in November 1947, upon the formation of the U.N. Temporary Commission, they cut in half the amount of electricity allowed South Korea.
Elections took place in South Korea on 10 May 1948. The North Koreans did not participate, nor did they recognize the results of the elections. The U.N. commission itself was barred from North Korea. But the elections brought out an estimated 80 percent of the eligible voters in the south who chose representatives for their National Assembly, and the U.N. commission reported the results to be valid…”
Baduk “I like the Rho?s proposal of supplying electricity to the North Korea. It is like having NK by the balls.”
If electricity were sent and and industry did start moving again, then a sudden discontinuation could create strains. But I believe that a stoppage of electricity would mean nothing because the elite will always have ways of generating electricity, and that is all that matters for the regime’s survival.
I also agree with others who say that any revisinism in the future as a result of opening more archives will always be tinged by nationalism
I want to make clear that I do not like North Korea.
North Koreans are not free. Most South Koreans prefer the western freedom over North Korea. This is not cultural imperalism. No one is forcing South Koreans to eat at McDonalds.
The North Koreans are totaltarian state. They keep a large portion of thier population in gulags. They torture and do medical experiments on prisoners. So why am I not going “gung ho” for America? Well, America, Japan and Russia set the stage for North Korea and all the evil of 20th century Asia. Mr. Kang’s statements were simply recognizing this. However, he
probably did not emphasize the Russian role and might be a NK supporter. He might deny the human rights violations of NK.
Mr. Kang made a few correct statements. The United States gave Japan permission to colonize the nation in 1905. That was not very cool. It’s a fact the US has wanted to be an Asian power since the Spanish American War.
It’s first crime was arming the Japanese. Has anyone seen the “Last Samurai”? America armed Japan but did’nt help any other Asian nation. This set the stage for Japanese Imperialism. We can use the Rape of Nanking as an example of results of US - Japanese trade in the 20th century.
However, social darwinism was popular during the 19th and 20th century. I figure many Americans figured Japan was superior to other Asian nations and deserved unlimited power. Why criticize the Japanese for their savage deeds? They were just copying the European imperialist powers. The Rape of Nanking was just Japanese copying Westerners. I’m sure there were some
Japanese who thought “Were big shots now! Were just like the British.” while they were brutally raping Chinese women and girls and beheading locals. “We can massacre natives better than Custer!”
Anyways, I do agree that the US had imperialistic ambitions in Asia. Why not? Social darwinism was the trendy thing back in those days. There was no political correctness back then. If you were superior then you ruled the inferior. Is that good or bad? I think it’s bad but some people disagree. I think the human race has progressed past that point.
Anyways, I think Mc Arthur was just a soldier obeying orders. The Koreans should be angry at Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and Truman. You also don’t want to leave out Stalin. These corrupt politicians divided Korea. The Koreans should have been left alone. However, that would have been an unlikely scenario because foriegn policy at the time was dictated by social darwinism. Yes it’s true. Every nation and people should be able to defend themselves. However, history has not played out that way. Your going to have your punks and your sweet boys.
Now I’m not defending the crimes of North Korea. I’m not dishonoring the veterans of the Korean War (on any side). But you have to look at the whole story.
The United States (in it’s desire for trade and power)
armed Japan. Accepting the social darwinistic trends of the time it proceeded to recognize Japanese imperialism. There was some conflict between Japan and the US over the Phillippines (an American colony) but the US solved it by recognizing Japanese rule in Korea.
Now I’m an American. I was a teacher in South Korea. I was insulted by anti-US Koreans. Yes it hurt. It was wrong for them to insult white people. Usually they would say the “f word you” (not to your face however).
These attacks were unprovoked.
Most Americans today have not read history and don’t want to hurt Koreans. I was’nt alive during either the Korean or Vietnam wars. The protestors should go to the US and try to influence public opinion there. Insulting Engish teachers will not solve the problem.
The anti-US Koreans seem to be bullies and hooligans not political activists. Would these protestors attack US troops? No, they would rather attack peaceful meek US teachers and tourists.
To sum it up, Koreans were the victims of social darwinism. In those days, there was no attempt to balance the power in Asia. Guns and weapons were simply given to the highest bidder. In this case it was Japan.
Does anyone agree or disagree with my opinions?
Social Darwinism? Maybe Occum?s Razor applies here ? the Koreans in power were in no position to make any difference. And the Japanese were out looking for good development models. The Americans did not march in and reconfigure Japanese society - the Japanese did. It is not Social Darwinism, it?s just the way humans have acted through centuries (and still do). While some Western elites back then justified their actions citing Social Darwinism, if that (defunct) theory did not exist in the late 19th and early 20th century, their actions and that of the of the Japanese would have been the same.
If anyone thinks Yi would have developed and grown or reformed if left alone (like that was even possible) checkout The Making of Modern Japan, by Marius B. Jensen (page 442) which talks about Japan?s reputation in the West back then and Korea?s lack of one: As Minister Horace Allen wrote to Washington about the Korean Empire ?
We will make a serious mistake if we allow sentimental reasons to induce us to attempt to bolster up this ?Empire?? in its independence. These people can not govern themselves?? I am not a pro-Japanese enthusiast, as you know, but neither am I opposed to any civilized race taking over the management of these kindly Asiatics for the good of the people and the suppression of oppressive officials, the establishment of order and the development of commerce.
It continues with a quote from an American journalist ?
What are you going to do with a government which??avoids action and evades responsibility by allowing its Ministers to resign at the rate of one or two a week? The Korean Emperor has a set of twenty to thirty men who may be compared to the court cards in a whist pack??Every time the cards are shuffled and dealt the same old knaves turn up, but in new places.
Yi was doomed and had a resource poor neighbor eager to emulate the West.
Jim, are you a graduate of Colorado University? You sound as though you validated your American History requirement by taking one of Ward Churchill’s classes.
You provide quite a potpourri of allegations. (I sincerely doubt if the Imperial Japanese generals planning the attack on Nanking in 1937 had a portrait of Custer hanging on the tent wall alongside that of the Emperor; but, I admit I haven’t read Iris Chang’s book, so I can’t positively disprove this rather remarkable assertion of yours (ie Custer as the inspiration for the rape of Nanking).
However, I do think that the fundamental point of your post (alleging that “America armed Japan”) should be supported by a lot more than the simple citing of a Tom Cruise movie. Of course I haven’t seen the movie, have no real idea of the “plot”, but my guess would be that “American Samurai” was just another piece of historical fiction, made to sell movie tickets and emulate the success of something like “Dances with Wolves”.
Projecting modern political sensibilities and mores back into the past is a most useful device for movie scriptwriters, who can freely make up events to reinforce a plot line; but real life tends to be a little more complicated, especially since we can’t see into the future quite as easily as we do into the past.
It’s my impression that in spite of the famous Admiral Perry fleet visit to Japan in 1853 (was that part of the movie?), the US was not involved in the “arming” of Japan in succeeding decades (if by that phrase you mean Japan’s transition from a feudal empire (the Shogunate?) to a modern colonial empire with a western-style modern army and navy).
If I recall, this transition is generally considered to have occurred between 1860 and 1905, at which time Japan “arrived” on the world scene by defeating Imperial Russia in a series of climactic land and sea battles, in Manchuria, the Yellow Sea, and the waters around Korea — the Russo-Japanese war.
As part of this war, the Japanese Army had essentially occupied Korea in the spring of 1904. The Taft-Katsura “agreement” of 1905 didn’t really do anything but recognize the actual fact of this occupation, in return for a Japanese recognition of the American occupation and annexation of the Phillippines (which was still in a decade-long process of consolidation).
I’m sure US President Theodore Roosevelt was worried that the newly expansionist Japanese empire was a threat to the Phillippines, and wanted to avoid the large expense of building coastal fortifications there to defend them. (Not to mention that he thought Korea would be better off under a Japanese “suzertainty” which was going to happen anyway. The idea that the US should have gone to war with Japan back then over Korea is evidently a currently fashionable but rather bizarre bit of modern Korean historical revisionism).
(BTW, how good old Teddy would be hurt by your allegation of “corruption”! I thought even good liberals these days still celebrated TR’s energetic “busting” of the “trusts”, to include that mother of all trusts Standard Oil. Standard was the original “Big Oil”, headed by the devil incarnate himself, John D Rockefeller the original!
Anyway — I think I recall that the various European powers competed with each other to make arms deals with the newly ascendant Japanese empire during this period (1870s-1890’s). Not the US, which was preoccupied with its own internal expansion and domestic troubles (to include those small matters known as the US Civil War and Reconstruction).
As Osama bin Laden might have put it — the Euros recognized a “strong horse” when they saw one and they rushed to make their accomodation with Japanese empire. Poor King Kojong of Korea wasn’t able to play the game of great power politics effectively; too bad, I suppose we’re all paying for that now. And too bad that the modern Koreans haven’t shown a little more respect for his imperial descendants (as chronicled by some interesting Marmot blog posts of the last several days).
At least King Kojong was trying to keep his country independent; doesn’t he get any credit for that at all, or is he simply just despised by modern Koreans as a “loser”?
The Japanese settled on the British Navy as the model for their Navy, and Prussian/ Hohenzollern/ newly unified German empire as their model for their
Army. These countries assisted the Japanese Empire in their military buildup, and they should be the ones (IMHO) who are said to have “armed” Japan (not the US).
Indeed, the Japanese Empire and the British Empire had a formal treaty of alliance from 1901 to 1921! While, on the contrary, the US had in this period a firm policy of no “entangling” formal alliances with any overseas powers (as a matter of long-standing national policy from the farewell address of George Washington).
You don’t see modern Koreans blaming the British Empire for its undoubted approval of the process of Japanese annexation of Korea between 1904 and 1910! Of course not. Historical revisionism of this type has more to do with the current domestic politics of the ROK (to include many ROK politicians’ rather pathetic attempts to “make nice” with their intractable Northern cousins) than with what actually happened so long ago.
I recommend you spend some more time reading some “alternate” histories of the period; US foreign policy was not the central world focus of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods (hard though that may be for you to believe).
Jim, Tom Cruise movies are not a reliable source for serious history. That would be like taking Oliver Stone’s movie on the Kennedy assassination as absolute fact. Great entertainment though. As for the “U.S. arming Japan”, you might enjoy reading Stephen Trumbull’s “Samurai Invasion” on the Imjin Wars of 1592-98, which will show you that Japan and Korea possessed firearms long before any “Nathan Algren” ever set foot in Asia. Peter Duus’ “The Abacus and the Sword” is also useful for a realistic view of Japan’s colonization of Japan, and it’s motives for doing so.
There’s been a lot of revisionism in the media coming from Korean “scholars” these days since the Roh administration came into power, and I’m hoping to seeing them all go away with the next administration.
Hey guys. Look at this interesting blog. It’s about the F@cking USA song. Feel free to post comments.
http://partypooper.blogs.com/p.....g_usa.html
My comments are listed under Joe.