I doubt it technically matches my memory or what I wrote in my first comment on this thread.

I said the police were disarmed in action before the days of the uprising — in a conversation about what came first - the chicken or the egg…

Having found the quote again, it does and does not match.

The quote is describing events that happened on the Sunday, May 18th - not technically days before the time frame set in describing the Uprising.

Pages 28-30.

But, in these pages, it does say the disarming of the police came before troops came on the scene in “a sudden, dramatic upward shift of gears” in the clashes.

The quote about the police is just above these words on p. 30

“Over near the Sansu-dong junction on the east side of the city, demonstrators managed to disarm fourty-five police. They then tried to swap the police, as hostages, for students who the police had arrested earlier. Around 4:40 PM the police were released.”

As I noted in earlier posts on this thread, there is no mention of what exactly “disarming” meant — and no hint of whether any “arms” were returned along with the freeing of the policemen.

As I was looking for this quote, I ran across another that had interested me in sorting out the jumble that is the history of what was going on in Kwangju:

p.23 presents a quote from diary of the student leader who wrote this chapter: “The students of Chonnam and Chosun universities demonstrated, attempting to take over the streets,” I noted in my Kwangju Diary.

Again, just tantalizing tid bits to mull over — what does “take over the streets” mean?

It could mean passive resistance such as a peaceful sit-in strike.

It could mean the kind of what I call “semi-violence” you see in Korea’s protest culture of today.

It could mean the kind of activity the world saw in the news in 1988.

???

Another thought provoking part of these pages I was rereading was the list of core leaders of the uprising listed on page 25.

“Most of the hardline student leadership that was to emerge in May 22-27 were connected with this world centered on the bookshop Nokdu and the Modern Cultural Institute….

….One can see, looking at their names and ages, that they were a relatively experienced core group of “eternal student” activists…..

….older and more experienced in the ways of the world than the generation of students I belonged to-the Kwangju uprising could, most likely, not have ended, as it did in an organized, sustained confrontation under martial law…..Had they not been there [Provincial Hall], everyone would have scattered, I believe.”

This touches directly on a blogger thread debate I had last year on another blog with someone about whether the idea North Korean influences being involved in some in Kwanju 1980 was absurd propaganda close to what Chun forced people to believe - or whether it was common sense given what we know (beyond propaganda) about North Korean efforts throughout the last 50 years.

In that debate, I was again trying to say that I did not by what seems to me a forced boomerang into the opposite pole of what the Chun propagandists tried to create as the only truth about Kwangju.

Today, the interpretation forced on you is that nothing but peaceful resistance was in the minds of the protesters (and their leaders), and it is a sin to entertain the idea some of these leaders might have been Pyongyang inspired.

They were just student leader idealists.

I will close by renoting as I did in other posts in this thread — it was this core leadership that several of the chapters in The Kwangju Uprising: Eyewitness Press Accounts of Korea’s Tiananmen

noted — some with apparent displeasure others with apparent qualified admiration —

had forced out other leaders in the civil community who wanted to negociate a compromise with the military and police authorities after the main day of bloodshed.

It was these leaders who are described as having the desire to create maryters to inspire the democracy movement.

And as I said before, I guess you would have to conclude their plan succeeded.

Today, these guys are heros and everyone pays homage to Kwangju 1980 as the spark that eventually led to the flowering of democracy in the early 1990s.

From a broad point of view, it seems fairly simple:

Some form of violence was the norm in Korean protest culture then — and it is today as well.

Violent protests were taking place in several areas — and I believe the common thoughts on them is that the government was the bad guy in virtually all of them - as a general trend of suppression.

But, protesters did fight back.

But —————————– and this is the key point for me in this comment —

nowhere else in Korea did scores of civilians (whatever the true final tally might be) die as a result of the violence.

Obviously, there was a difference in Kwangju.

And the hands down common conclusion all around is that it was the actions of the paratroopers that caused Kwangju to be different from Pusan, Seoul or elsewhere that had violent clashes.

However…….Kwangju is also the unique place where groups of civilians decided to fight live fire with live fire —- that took up guns and other things as weapons — and fought back.

And it seems to me, there are two rough groups, especially among the non-Koreans, who interpret the actions of the students and few others who held out to the bloody end —– those who romanticize them as true freedom fighters whose emotions were not only justified, their final actions were as well —– and then those who are more like me - who would have favored an outcome led by those who wanted to minimize what bloodshed was left to come and negociated with the authorities.

I’d also be very interested to hear about what Mizar5 asked about above. I’m also curious about the paragraph quoted above - about the KCIA agent, about your not-quite-deportation, and even about George Ogle. Though I do know a little about the Peace Corps program in Korea, I don’t know anything about his case. Another thing I’m curious about - how long were PCVs supposed to stay in Korea at that time? I have a friend who is a PCV in Albania at the moment, and she had to make a three year commitment - was it a similar amount of time back then?

It’s good to have clear voices like yours speaking of firsthand experiences. Your view is a constructive one - a dispassionate view with an eye to what lessons can be learned rather than what people we should target as objects of hatred.

Also, it shows something about how you guys worked with and deeply cared about Koreans despite the obstacles - trying to adjust to an atmosphere of oppression and still try to do right. I think that the Korean habit of marginalizing and manipulating foreigners had much to do with the inability of any foreign powers to react in any meaningful way at the time. There is still a broad misunderstanding that the US cynically condoned Chun and the violence and that it was directing things from the sidelines, when in fact, the role was largely marginalized.

There was a sort of fatalism at the time and a grudging acknowledgement that any small steps toward democracy needed to be carefully nurtured. You have told me the USIS was incompetent and that the embassy expressed disbelief. Can you expand on this?

The Spring of Democracy, it was a very interesting time in Korea and in Gwangju. I actually had a number of friends who were deeply involved in the planning of the student activities. You are correct there was a lot of allowing ones outrage and angry be expressed by the throwing of rocks, but in so ways Gwangju was quite different than the norm. Initial protests prior to the initiation of martial law were peaceful. Remember prior to 05/18 the student unions had called for all protest to stop. The hope was that democracy could still happen if the students would back off. Gwangju students and some of the citizens decided that peaceful demonstration was still called for in order to re-enforce with the military that democracy was the desired outcome. With the initiation of martial law, student and civilian opposition leaders were arrested or went into hiding. Campuses were closed and students not allowed access by the martial law troops. Even the initial protests after the initiation of martial law were peaceful (it is a relative term in Korea during those years). But the candle light march on Saturday night was peaceful and orderly. To make the long story short the Gwangju Incident would not have happened without the random and overt violence that was precipitated upon the students of Gwangju. Yes rocks were thrown (there was a construction site nearby that made it easy). But the random violence is what flamed the fire within the citizens of Gwangju. On the first Sunday Tim and I were wondering around the downtown area of Gwangju in front of the Provincial Offices when we were approached by a weathered old grandfather, dressed in traditional cloths, stopped us. He asked if we knew what had happened and we said yes. He then went on to say that it was time for the citizens to fight back that they should not take the beatings any longer, that they must stand up and fight for their freedom or they would not be able to do so ever again in their lifetime. This was on the first evening, prior to the bus station machine gunning incident or the Chonnam Hospital machine gunning incident but after the random violence had begun to rain down on innocents. You must remember that during the protests of the first afternoon innocent people were chased, beaten and dragged away. Truly innocent people, people on their way home from church, people shopping on the only day they got off during the week.

I think that we must pull back and realize that if Chun had decided to handle the protests in a different manner there would not have been a Gwangju Incident/Uprising. With the crack down of martial law only Gwangju responded. And after it became known what was happening in Gwangju it became difficult to organize protests. The crack down in Gwangju had every powerful short term effects, that of making the opposition afraid, afraid for their lives. Another thing that made Gwangju different is that people (not a lot) had reach a decision that the sacrifice of their life was a small price to pay for a potential future of freedom.

“Were the off-campus marches of May 14-16 as peaceful as some accounts have described them?” Rock throwing was part of the script for protests at that time. Protests at the college campuses did involve rock throwing but it was an extension of the shouting. A protest without bloodshed would not be heard. BUT the protests march on Saturday was completely nonviolent. It was a show of solidarity so a different script was necessary. It was planned as a non-violent protest march, I know, I knew some of the organizers. With my friends I had always advocated non-violent protest (Quaker up bring) but I also told them to read about Gandhi protest methods against British imperialism. Students, who at that time were acting as the conscience of the people felt that for a protest to be effective and to be heard, blood had to be spilled. Remember what caused the overthrow of the Rhee regime. Read the biography of Chun Taeil to get a better understanding of what the activists felt was required in order to invoke change. And always remember that student protest and worker protests can not be equated at that time in Korea.

“What do you remember about the atmosphere in Kwangju (with the month or so of on-campus student protests) in the weeks prior to the crackdown?” There was still hope that democracy would be allowed to flourish. The students, the citizens had hope that they would be allowed to pursue a democratic future. Because of this hope the student unions called for a moratorium on protests. They felt that by pulling back Chun and his buddies would allow free elections. But 05/18 changed that perception. President Park had been dead six months, 12/12 was five months behind us and the north had not attacked.

“In your estimation, were labour strikes as prominent in Kwangju as they were in Seoul and Pusan (or the Wonju area)?” We did not hear of a plethora of worker strikes at that time in the Chonnam area but then again we did not have much industry. Chonnam had for the most part been ignored for economic development by the Park regime. Also at this time there was no great union of the students and the workers. They were for the most part separate groups fighting for separate but overlapping ideals.

And the ghosts of my friends from Gwangju’s fallen are with me everyday and have help to guide me down the path that I have chosen.

Peace

Thanks for taking the time to comment here.

Quite a few of the foreigners that remained in Kwangju at that time (from what I know, either PCVs, former PCVs, or missionaries, whose names are well known to those who have looked closely into the event) have publicly commented on their experiences during the uprising. I discovered William Amos’s website for his book “The Seed of Joy” several months ago and saw your comment there and was curious about what you had seen, until Mizar5 linked to your account above.

To try and ask a few specific questions, one of the topics being discussed here was the nature of the protests in Kwangju prior to the May 17 extension of martial law. Were the off-campus marches of May 14-16 as peaceful as some accounts have described them? What do you remember about the atmosphere in Kwangju (with the month or so of on-campus student protests) in the weeks prior to the crackdown? In your estimation, were labour strikes as prominent in Kwangju as they were in Seoul and Pusan (or the Wonju area)?

It’s great to see your post. Just tell it like it happened. I don’t care what comes out - you have an important role as an eyewitness.

My regards to your family and I hope you are all doing well.