By ANDY JACKSON
Marmot??s Hole Guest Blogger
Not speaking a language well can force one to speak a truth that could otherwise be hidden in nuance, irony or any number of other cleaver usages of language.
I’m teaching a class on culture down at lovely Ansan College. This week, we discussed how a people’s symbols, heroes and rituals reflect their values. During the discussion, I asked students to talk about Korean heroes. One student raised his hand and said that one of his heroes was Yoon Bong Gil. The student paused for a couple of seconds then added, “He was a terrorist.”
That produced nervous smiles and nods of agreement from the other students. A look at this essay by Kwan Yoo tells why:
From Shanghai, [ President of the Provisional Government, Kim Ku] sent several young volunteers to kill Japanese leaders, including the Emperor, in Tokyo and occupied Seoul. Some succeeded and some failed. Of these, Yoon??s case was the most successful one. As the Japanese in Shanghai were preparing for the birthday ceremony, Kim obtained bombs [which he gave to Yoon] in the forms of a lunch box and a water canteen from his Chinese friends…
A couple of hours later at 11:40 am, the city of Shanghai shook. Yoon threw his bombs at the Japanese dignitaries on the podium. Among others, the fearful [4-star general Yoshinori] Shiragawa received multiple wounds and died a month later; Admiral Kichisaburo Nomura (Commander of the Japanese 3rd Fleet), who served as the Japanese Ambassador to Washington at the time of Pearl Harbor, lost his right eye; and Shigemitsu, who was the Japanese Consul General to China, lost his left leg.
Had his English been better, my student might have called Yoon a valiant warrior, patriot, martyr or (you knew this was coming) freedom fighter. But his English level wasn’t up to the task so he had to settle on Terrorist. Of course in the minds of my students and most Koreans he was a ‘good terrorist’ who was simply fighting for his country.
Difficulty in defining what is terrorism is nothing new and not limited to those who speak English as a second language. This site offers no less than six definitions from a variety of sources. Let’s take a look at what the FBI says about it:
Code of Federal Regulations (Revised July 2001)
Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
So would the FBI consider Yoon a terrorist? He did use violence against persons to intimidate or coerce a government. So was his use of violence unlawful? Some may argue that, since Yoon was acting under the direction of the President of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in attacking government officials of an enemy state, he had made a lawful military attack. However, the Provisional Government lacked international recognition (the generally accepted measure of legitimacy)
So, can an unrecognized government-in-exile grant the legal authority to carry out such attacks?
It can if it wins.
(Or is at least allied with the winning side.)
15 Comments
I never felt comfortable with the Boston Tea Party or the Boston Massacre even as a kid early in elementary school. How was dressing up like Indians and boarding a ship to destroy property heroic and patriotic? How outraged can I be when a mob of people throwing snowballs with shell and rock and brandishing clubs and other weapons are fired up by a much smaller group of soldiers with not a whole lot of loss of life? It wasn’t until much later that I found out one of our future presidents and a patriot was the defense lawyer for the Brit soldiers put on trial for the shooting….
Well, as a descendant of one of the most famous/notorious terrorists in Russian history, I wholeheartedly agree with the article. There is no way to define “terrorism”, and founders of many states born in the revolutionary and independence struggle once used terrorist tactics. If they survived they became respected statesmen, if they died but their comrades eventually won they were remembered as fallen heroes, if they lost?? well, it??s never nice to be on a losing side. But what makes terrorists of nowadays different (and what my bomb-throwing ancestors would not approve) is that they seldom target the enemies’ leaders, but commit indiscriminate killings. With few exceptions, the terrorists of the past were different. I do not think that any of the Korean ??terrorists?? of the 1930s would consider, say, throwing bombs to a Tokyo street caf??. And Governor Generals ?? well, it was fair target, unless we try to be legalistic (that is, to be on the side of the powerful who always define rules and write laws). But I suspect we still cannot find a nice definition of ??terrorism?? which would include all people we happen to like, but also exclude all people we dislike.
If he fought for a good cause during a critical time, he is not considered a terrorist. Now those islam freaks, I consider terrorists because their ideia is destruction during peace time (I don’t know I’m being prejudiced).
I think Katz knows all about “cleaver” usage of language.
The Boston Massacre (1770?) should be distinguished from the Boston Tea Party (1775?), not only in time but more particularly in “deliberateness”.
(Going from memory so I’ve used question marks to indicate dates facts that I haven’t googled to verify).
The word “massacre” was successfully applied to the 1770 incident by the advocates of revolutionary separation from the Crown, using the only “mass media” of the time (pamphleteering). I think all historians agree that such advocates were clearly only a small minority of American colonial subjects at that that time!
The British overreacted by firing on a mob, which as you imply had begun by throwing snowballs at the “lobsters” (jeering name for the redcoated soldiers) They were on guard at some governmental facility (governor’s mansion?)?
You might have noted that the defense lawyer (John Adams?) got the British soldiers put on trial for this acquitted! By showing that they were in genuine fear for their lives when the mob pressed in on them (even though nobody had fired rifles or pistols at them).
The “Tea Party” was most carefully planned to avoid any hint of violence, other than that applied to the boxes of tea. I can’t remember what happened to any “harbor watch” on the cargo ships; either there was none, or else they were plied with drink or detained without injury. The citizens who destroyed the tea (100-250? of them) were most careful to preserve their “anonymity” with their “disguises”, and they went so far as to replace the locks on the ships’ holds! The ones that they had broken in order to hoist the tea crates out, before breaking them open and then casting them into the harbor.
The often heard statement that terrorism can’t be defined seems like academic dogma to me. It’s one of those statements that never get questioned, not unlike the statement that terrorists are “cowards,” like you need to be scared and running from something to fly a plane into a building, or like terrorists wouldn’t challenge a nation’s military to a duel if they had the equipment. (Rather I think it gives people a certain kind of satisfaction to call them cowards.)
I define terrorism as something that targets ordinary citizens. I’ll grant people that there might be fuzzy areas, but targeting civilians isn’t one of them. Ah, sure, the student of political science or international relations will tell you that even in the case in Beslan the culprits are not terrorists to those who support(ed) them, but that’s just something that provides you with a good way to identify those who support terrorism. I don’t feel the need to think the term means nothing in order to try to understand the social and political causes behind it and to believe that the world could fight the causes, not just the terrorists.
Someone who seeks to assinate a leader or a specific official and limit his wrath to the individual target will surely be called a terrorist in some history books, but from a technical standpoint - what the specific mission involves - it’s an assasination. I think some people (especially Westerners) confuse two different issues: (1) the politicized reality of how history is written and (2) how we should see things as individuals when we decrypt the doublespeak.
One can call Yun Bong Gil an assasin (or some other term that could be used by both sides with relative comfort… maybe “assasin” ain’t good but you can still get a good idea of what he did) and still hate him and think he’s a criminal, a colonial who didn’t know what was good for him. Calling him a terrorist is propaganda, doublespeak designed to distract or brainwash.
Assassin is the way to stay neutral and describe the act.
Oranckay,
How would you define “ordinary citizens?”
In 1969 Olympics (I think), armed intruders kidnapped and killed a group of atheletes. Olympians are usually considered to be a representative or symbol of a nation (See how Owens is treated by Americans), resembling more of an ambassador or representative than a “mere” athelete. Are they “ordinary citizens?” Were the killers terrorists? How about Michael Jordan or Babe Ruth? Are they “ordinary citizens?”
How about Iraqi insurgents? They mainly target military personnels or police. Are they terrorists?
How about people engaged in military research or support role? In Madison, Wisconsin in the 70s, a bomb exploded in a military research facility, killing a researcher. Are the perpetuators terrorists?
Does the intent count? What if you did not intend to kill any one (or any “ordinary citizen”) but you ended up doing so. Are you a terrorist or not? What if you just intended to destroy the property but unintentionally end up killing someone. Are you a terrorist?
How about people who manufacture/sell weapons? They play a huge role in military/political struggle. So someone who bombs a weapons factory, is he a terrorist?
I think the definition of terrorism is not so tenuous. I think Yoon was a terrorist because he used deadly force to intimidate a government for his political goals. For Koreans, he was a “good” terrorist because he was on their side. For Japanese, he wasn’t. So what? Pretending he was not is as disingenuous as making the distinction between “lawful” and “unlawful” violence, although that is something that perhaps should be discussed at some other time.
“I think the definition of terrorism is not so tenuous. I think Yoon was a terrorist because he used deadly force to intimidate a government for his political goals. For Koreans, he was a ??good?? terrorist because he was on their side. For Japanese, he wasn??t. So what? Pretending he was not is as disingenuous as making the distinction between ??lawful?? and ??unlawful?? violence, although that is something that perhaps should be discussed at some other time.”
And simply letting your country be taken by a f* country. Do you have common sense? Why complicate things for a simple matter? Read my previous comment.
Yun Bong Gil targeted military leadership, not civilians, therefore I would hardly compare him to the likes of such people who nowadays blow up buildings or subways for the sake of revenge or for cultivating fear in a society. Yun Bong Gil’s objectives (from what I read) appear to be military. The FBI’s definition of “terrorism” suits their purposes, thus is not a complete accounting of such. Especially nowadays, I would not look to the bureaucracy in the FBI that produced such pap as being anything like a guiding principle for government.
It is worrisome when others use such terminology in such a debased and free manner that all distinction between military action and murder are lost. Look at the more rabid descriptions, from certain Korean sources, of General macArthur and consider such as a small example of such flawed thought.
What about the examples from the Ireland-UK history?
not unlike the statement that terrorists are ??cowards,?? like you need to be scared and running from something to fly a plane into a building, or like terrorists wouldn??t challenge a nation??s military to a duel if they had the equipment. (Rather I think it gives people a certain kind of satisfaction to call them cowards.)
Agree with Orancay wholeheartedly.
I define terrorism as something that targets ordinary citizens. I??ll grant people that there might be fuzzy areas, but targeting civilians isn??t one of them.
In this regard, I would not quite agree with Orancay ?? or rather ??agree, but?????. It might be a good definition (I like it - even if there are indeed some problems with defining who are “ordinary citizens” and who are not). But the problem is that there is a number of people in the past, until the mid-20th century, who were called “terrorists” and described themselves in this way. Well, we can decide that that their self-description is sort of archaic, and that neither my own ancestors from the ‘People’s Will’, nor Korean nationalists of the 1930s were real “terrorists” in modern sense even if they described themselves as “terrorists”. But we still have to remember that it means a post-factum re-definition of the word.
I don’t think Yoon Bong Gil really was a terrorist, since he did target leadership figures. At the same time, I remember when I first read about some of the supposed ‘heros’ of Korean independence and thought how some of them were really little more than killers or assasins. Are these guys really worthy of being considered heros?
I’d rather not force a definition but take it case by case. As we have clearly seen in this thread, definitions will vary with time and which group makes them.
Targeting or not targeting civilians or targeting political and military figures, for example, seems to also depend on what you think of the validity of the cause.
Sirhan Sirhan shot Kennedy as part of the struggle against Israel - by his definition. He was striking at a political figure in a colonial struggle - again by his and others’ definition.
I know cops in the US who saw assassinations of people connected to the British government and bombings in Ireland and England over Irish independance as freedom fighters.
I heard a 20 something Muslim invited on a news talk show in England say the World Trade Center was a viable target, because it was connected to the US economic domination of the Middle East and other areas of the world and the Pentagon strike was also valid because it struck at military targets.
What about in South Korea itself?
In 2002, there was a firebombing of a gate at a small US compound in Seoul. The USFK spokesman at Yongsan, the one quoted often that year and seen on the footage of the press conferences, was cut in an attempted stabbing by 2 or 3 young adult Koreans as he walked through the underpass heading to the base…..In the flyers tossed out at the firebombing, a note read something like, “USFKs in Korea and keeps killing people. We must fight back. You die or we die.” These guys saw it as colonial(-ish) occupation and the continuation of the division of Korea due to America’s power over the South.
The spokesman wasn’t a civilian. He was part of the US forces occupying Korea…
…so, is he fair game?
Since we’re arguing defintions here I submit that the definition of “coward” depends in turn on how you define “courage”. I don’t think hopeless suicidal gestures show “courage”.
I think that, relative to a classical understanding of Western civilization, “courage” is meant to be a positive and uplifting quality. One which is invalidated by murder.
I qualify my assertions here at the beginning by sayign that I know little about Korean history prior to 1945 (am happy to glean smatterings of knowledge about it here, such as this fascinating item).
To be validated, IMO “courage” would need to be demonstrated in the selection of military objectives (not civilian) and also in the hope that the proposed “terrorist” action would realistically further the goal of rolling back tyranny, IN THE LIGHT OF A REASONABLE OUTLOOK AT THE TIME.
(Sorry for the all caps, I don’t know how to use “quicktags” to boldface don’t want to take time now to learn).
I notice, for example, that none of you here has made a very logical extrapolation from your rather cynical “realpolitick” (saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter etc etc).
And that extrapolation is: from the assassination of Japanese occupation officials in 1932 to that of a hypothetical assassination attempt against North Korean government officials.
Why not? If some hypothetical young but capable Koreans came to you right now and showed you a plan for the assassination of KJI, which, say, had maybe a 10% chance of achieving its objective, what would you say to them?
Woud you say, “go ahead and do it”, even though the plan has no realistic hope of changing the overall nature of the current North Korean regime? And even though the attempt, successful or not, would probably bring a terrible retribution against already suffering North Koreans?
And even though such young people might do more for the future of their country by engaging in anti-Communist political activities from the ROK, or perhaps even from peaceful (if illegal) covert activity in the PRC?
There was no reasonable way to foresee in 1932 that this action would further the aspirations of Korean independence. No outside power was going to come to Korea’s aid in the 1930’s.
Indeed, considering the general outlook of the West at the time, the only reasonable course open to any Korean nationalist would have been activity from exile to keep some sort of politically viable Korean government-in-exile going.
Or even a return to Korea to work within the Japanese administration, to ameliorate its actions and to try to protect one’s fellow countrymen from the worst aspects of it.
I’ll contrast this with another more or less very similar action (both in type and in timeline, ie pre-1945). By this I mean the assassination of Heydrich, the Nazi “protector” of Czechosolvakia (or maybe it was just Bohemia) in 1942.
An action undertaken by Czech nationalists on behalf of their government-in-exile which was a recognized ally of the UK US, and which was organized and assisted by British intelligence. The story was told in fascinating detail in a late 1940’s or early 50’s book, “Seven Men at Daybreak” (written by a British author (Paul Brickhill (?), the same authory who wrote the book “The Great Escape”, on which the heavily fictionalized 1963 movie was based).
The Czechs paid a terrible price for the successful assassination of Heydrich (which almost didn’t succeed). But, it was seen as part of the ongoing world war effort.
I wonder what the current Czechs, looking back, think about the price paid for it now. (Thousands of Czechs were executed by the Nazis in retaliation, to include the symbolic total destruction of one Czech village which in fact had had nothing to do with the plot. This was the famous destruction of Lidice).
I hope all of you will post more about the efforts of Korean nationalists to win recognition for their cause in the West during the period 1905-45. From where I sit, it seems to me that it might have been much more helpful to the cause of Korean nationalism if Kim Kuj, Yun Bong Gil, et al had foregone hopeless assasination attempts that weren’t going to change anything.
Instead, remaining alive, in which case they could have offered to serve in “free Korean” type military units with allied forces after December 1941, or maybe as individual translators for allied intelligence.
Or politically active in trying to get a potential Korean “government in exile” recognized as an allied co-belligerent.