Today marks the 28th anniversary of the Gwangju confrontation. It is something that has been dealt with on this blog and other K-blogs numerous times.
It has been described as a communist rebellion and as the spark that started Korea on the path to democracy. The truth is likely a messy combination of those and other factors, but the myth of Gwangju has become pervasive.
During a speech commemorating the event, President Lee Myung-bak said that his government was ready to help North Korea open up.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
“It has been described as a communist rebellion and as the spark that started Korea on the path to democracy.”
This lie will be corrected in near future. Kwangju uprising was Cholla Commies attempt in seizing government control. It was organized by UndongKwnon anti-government Commies and executed by the help of NK spies.
No other cities joined in. Only Kwangju. These radicals thought they could enough confusion to the government and bring about unification under NK. One egregious thing about this “democratic movement” is their attacking police station and taking weapons. This was out of control and participants had to be killed. Because they armed themselves, going beyond what is acceptable. By the time, average Kwangju citizens noticed what is happening, these agitators have already fled the city.
Only dumb students and street beggars continued to fight soldiers and some died.
This lie about Kwangju should be brought to light. And, I think it will come out soon.
Kim DaeJung and Rho Muhyen lost power and there is nobody to keep this Kwangju lie from backfiring. Truth eventually come out.
Due to this “armed” uprising, Chun had to become a harsh dictator. And, many college students (college was the bedlock of these anti-government commies) were outraged when Chun’s soldiers started to check the content of their backpacks.
It all started with Kwangju uprising and it has set Korean democracy by at least ten years.
Chun is not a evil dictator. Actually, he could have become just another Park ChungHee. But, after Kwangju, he had to be a tough and an evil dictator. He could not let the country become a NK sympathizer nation, which it became under Kim DaeJung and Rho MuHyen.
Under LMB, the truth about Kwangju will eventually come out.
My dad put it thusly this morning.
“It is just incomprehensible to me how the military, created, maintained, and continued by the people in order to protect the people, turn against that very people and kill them. It made no sense to me back then, and it makes no sense to me now.”
He’s from Gyeonggi province and was 22 at the time.
My mom had a more… colorful opinion, which I’m not so sure if I want to post it here in the public eyes. She was born and raised in Bosung, Cholla Namdo, and always calls people who label Gwangju as ‘commie rebellion’ as… well, that would be the only time she would use swears in conversation.
By the way, did I mention that my paternal grandfather worked for a certain intelligence agency in Korea at the time.. ‘asking questions’? His birthday, unfortunately placed in mid-May, is always awkward.
it’s much easier to say that this was all-commie, but that’s too easy.
be honest. It’s regional hate.
where was the North Korean In-gong-gi being hoisted up?
why were they flying Tae-guk-gi’s?
any dissent was commie?
dissent was dissent. Even his own in Busan and Masan didn’t approve of Chung Hee serving unlimited terms as President, Leader of South Korea, King of South Korea, etc.
sure, the most convinient and powerful source of outside help they could have gotten was a communist one. Did they?
still, this event of the military putting down civilians by force, prompted a significant change in South Korean democracy.
the other side has more likely chance in gaining power, than say, Japan.
it’s actually healthy to have libs and cons duke it out, instead of one side sitting there for 50 years, and using military to maintain it.
In that respect, you should go wash your mouth with bar soap, if you ever called George W. Bush a fascist.
never was one.
Elected by the books,
the economy, believe it or not, was ruined by people who couldn’t afford loans, taking advantage of low interest rates.
No attacks on American soil.
He belongs in Mount Rushmore.
I’m intrigued by what baduk wrote, and I was kinda suspicious about the myth myself, but I would appreciate some links and footnotes to support your claims. (BTW the tone you use doesn’t give one confidence that you’re even trying to be objective.)
And how do you read about the “myth” in the link posted? Even if you register, it’s impossible.
I think it’s a lot more complex than regional hate or “commies” running the show. The first article published in English, in 1987, by a Peace Corps Volunteer who witnessed the uprising, is still a very good introduction. It’s in pdf form here for anyone who’s interested:
http://www.filesend.net/downlo.....00d7653570
(the download button is at bottom left).
The book “The Kwangju Uprising: Eyewitness Press Accounts of Korea’s Tiananmen” has an interesting chapter by a reporter from Busan, who saw the same paratroopers put down much more violent protests in Busan in October of 1979 with much less force. In Busan they were there to clear the streets of protesters (ie chase them away) and no one was killed. What he saw on May 18 he could only describe as ‘human hunting’, as they attacked any young people they found on the streets, in neighboring stores, on buses. It was the violence of the paratroopers towards almost anyone that got in their way which set off the uprising. If the police had been left to deal with the protesters, it would never have happened.
The main fault lies with the way the paratroopers on the first day dealt with a pretty routine protest. People were justifiably angry and started to fight back. The military kept sending more troops into the city day after day, and those troops, unaware of their predecessors’ actions, became justifiably angry at the violence of the protesters. Probably the biggest mistake of the military was attacking taxi drivers who were helping people get to the hospital (and allowing them to ‘escape’ the military). When the taxi and bus drivers drove en masse downtown, it allowed the protesters to control the streets. Then the troops started opening fire, citizens began arming themselves, and the military was forced to retreat.
Missing from most descriptions of the uprising is the fact that between the military retreat from the city (May 21) and their re-invasion of the city (May 27) about one third of those who died during the uprising were killed at military roadblocks on the city’s outskirts as they fired on passing cars and buses thought to contain protesters.
Fun fact for Baduk: one two occasions the soldiers stationed on the outskirts of the city fired on… other soldiers (from ambush), mistaking them for citizen army members. 12 of the 22 soldiers who died during the uprising did so from friendly fire. I suppose you’ll blame that on the commies too?
Baduk you are out of control. If the Gwangju protesters were ‘commies’ then why did they believe that the US was going to help them? If they were commies then why did they fly the ROK flag? And why did they cheer Western journalists who entered the city?
Also your claim that no other cities joined in is especially specious since many other cities joined in once they learned about the massacre.
I’m not an expert but from what I can tell the Gwangju protesters considered themselves democrats and patriots against an illegal and tyrannical military dictatorship. Again, it seems they thought the US would come to their defense.
This was probably the most important event since the signing of the Armistice. Treating it with the same attitude of illogic that you show toward what you call “evolution nazis” would be funny if this weren’t such an important and sensitive topic to Koreans, the single most damaging incident for South Korea – US ties, and the incident that ultimately paved the way for democracy in South Korea.
Since you appear to be a fundamentalist “Christian,” let me note that there were many pastors among the protesters.
Korean Historical Controversies from George Washington U has some fascinating videos of American news coverage of the uprising and massacre here.
Wait wait wait. Guys. Wait. Whats Kwangju?
…
Since I’ve “never heard of it in my class” it must “never have exsisted.” The preponderence of documented evidence is no match for propagandized curricula!
Poor poor Chun Doohwan. The evil commies FORCED him to be a brutal corrupt dictator! He had no choice!
It is unfortunate that many like to view Gwangju either as a democracy movement or communist uprising. Or Park Chung Hee either as a great president or terrible dictator. Or write textbooks with an obvious bias to the left or right. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
#6 I don’t know how to access the article. This line from the abstract was good enough for a link: “It was a struggle for truth, a transcendence of secular life and the creation of a new historical community.”
Is this our cue for saying “we must understand him because he had a difficult life.” ?
Maybe, “He was drunk. He didn’t know any better.”
Those news broadcasts put the situation in an entirely new light for me. The news reported that Gwangju was violently opposed to the military coup that happened the previous weekend. They also call it the “Kwangju Democratic Movement.”
I saw that Korean movie last year about what happened in Gwangju. It made one Korean girl I was with cry, but the other wasn’t impressed. I doubted the authenticity of the video since each main actor had his own special death scene. It reminded me of the movies of the Alamo I saw as a young boy in Texas, which I also don’t believe to be factual. (I mean, David Bowie taking out 4 mexicans with his Bowie knife, named after him, while he was in a sickbed, before the bastards finally took him out? too good to be true!)
Anyways, there’s obviously two very different versions of events. In one version, evil commies tried to secede from the ROK and join north korea, and in the other, indignant Democratics violently protest a military coup. The only agreement between the two versions is that there were a lot of guns in the hands of Gwangju citizens at the time.
“I mean, David Bowie taking out 4 mexicans with his Bowie knife, named after him, while he was in a sickbed, before the bastards finally took him out? too good to be true!”
Yeah,Too good to be true.That was Jim,not Ziggy Stardust…
“the other side has more likely chance in gaining power, than say, Japan.”
Jee,that formula sure helps to put Japanese democracy back on it’s truck.
First,you start riot,then impose the martial law,and then the military open fire at civillians in broad daylight,wait for two dozen years.
And Voila! You have Roh Muh Hyun.
You know,THAT may work in Iraq too.
bulgasari,
All those anecdotes are all bullshit.
People can protest. People can drum up support for their cause.
However, when they arm themselves and start shooting at their own country’s soldiers, then it is beyond what is acceptable. And, that is why they had to be killed.
If they just rioted and try to “voice” their displeasure, that is acceptable. When they raided police station and arm themselves and shoot at their own country soldiers, that is treason.
They had to be killed because they have gone beyond the boundary. I am not condoning Chun. I think he was and is a bad Korean.
But people from Kwangju are equally bad. They do not understand the law. And, government.
What the heck were they thinking by arming themselves and shooting at soldiers, some from their province? What were they trying to achieve?
Not democracy, for sure.
Gen. Baeck was in charge of protecting Seoul. When Gen.Chun rounded up his troops and attacking Seoul, he resisted at first. About ten Korean soldiers were dead or injured.
Then, he thought what he was doing. He was helping Kim IlSung. He chose the lessor of two evils. He gave up.
Kwangju people did not care. They, like children, would rise up against their own soldiers, eventually to benefit Kim IlSung.
Chun did the right thing at the time. If he had given up, then these Kwangju Commies would have contacted Kim IlSung and immediately started the Unification process under Kim.
If you have any question about this, then consider what happened immediately after 4.19 student riot. These “stupid” student rioters immediately contacted the North Korea and were willing to disarm South Korea army.
That is when 5.16 military coup happened. And, saved the country.
These Kwangju Commies think even today that two Koreas must unite. Even under Communist rule.
They are crazy. Just plain crazy.
“They are crazy. Just plain crazy.”
are you looking into a mirror when you’re saying this?
Ultra sick rightest, Baduk!
re #18
I don’t want to draw an oversimplified comparison but fledgling ‘Americans’ took up arms against soldiers from Britain in 1776 and most Americans would not now consider that treason. Our history books definitely don’t. Britons, of course, did consider it treason as well as unlawful. They probably would have called it terrorism but at the time although I don’t believe the term had been invented.
I believe that when a non-democractic or not-sufficiently democratic government is non-responsive to its citizens, there are sometimes when taking up arms against one’s own soldiers or countrymen is justified.
That must have been one helluva kool-aid baduk drank back in 1980 from the Chun regime. I’ve never heard of one with effects lasting over 28 years.
I honestly can’t say how pure the protesters’ (and eventually the uprising’s) intentions regarding towards communism or NK were. What I do believe firmly is that despite all that, the heart of the matter still resided with longing for democracy in a regime that weren’t too keen on creating one. Regardless of how it supposedly is the start of modern SK anti-Americanism (or at least cynicism towards U.S.), Gwangju is a symbol of democracy, a pretty gem in the middle of mudpile we call 20th century Korean history. Just because ultraleftist terrorists and black racists were in the Million Man March doesn’t make the event ‘racist’, ‘whack-liberalism’, or ‘terrorist-sponsored’. Same idea here.
I’ve always been confused by that, btw… what the f*ck could Carter have done in that situation? Wasn’t he just a little preoccupied with two critical situations in Asia at the time?
#22
“Just because ultraleftist terrorists and black racists were in the Million Man March doesn’t make the event ‘racist’, ‘whack-liberalism’, or ‘terrorist-sponsored’. Same idea here.”
That’s a terrible analogy. A much better one would be the LA riots in the 90s. A number of folks on the hard left saw it as a legitimate boiling over point from a community that had been repressed by the police, and others saw it as lawlessness that had to be crushed.
I’m with the folks who say that anyone claiming this was some “gem” of democracy in action, but I also don’t think it’s fair to say it was all a commie motivated strike. It is surely in between those two assessments.
Baduk: In re: “However, when they arm themselves and start shooting at their own country’s soldiers, then it is beyond what is acceptable. And, that is why they had to be killed.”
Precisely what some of my ancestors said back in 1776.
Well, one thing about your nom de plume “baduk”, you leave no doubt that you view everything in black and white.
Anyone who forgets that North and South are still at war should have their keyboard broken over their heads.
Jeju was the first skirmish. Gwangju was not the last (remember the sub full of terrorists that ran aground?).
Effete pseudo-intellectuals who live under the protection of western-style democracies have been free to prattle on about the sins of their governments and the “superior” nature of the totalitarian regimes of Kim Il Sung, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and others. But they don’t make any efforts to move to these example of the “Workers’ Paradise”…
Why d’ya suppose that is?
Kwangju was a sad moment in Korean history, no doubt. Unfortunately (but not surprising) for most Koreans, their true grasp of the incident is completely blinded by nationalism, competing ideologies, and regionalism. Actually, in my opinion many Koreans suffer from this regarding many of the events in their history. Not to say that other nations don’t as well, but we are talking about Korea here.
Contrary to popular belief, the US DID NOT support what happened in Kwangju. State Dept. documents clearly show that the US embassy kept Carter informed of the events. The documents also show that the Carter administration, whose entire foreign policy was based on human rights (this is man who made it a campaign pledge to pull US troops out of Korea because of human rights abuses by the Park regime) made it clear to the embassy that they were to convey to the ROK gov. that this was not acceptable.
Now this is where the dilemma comes in. The US could have stepped in and tried to stop this, but would it really have been successful? This is something that those who feel Kwangju was entirely the fault of the US never consider. When they say, “we thought America would help us”, what do they mean? What did they want? Did they want US troops to roll into Kwangju and start shooting ROK troops? Did they want the US to overthrow the ROK gov.? This fundamental question is NEVER asked. Now, honestly, if the US had interevened, how do you think it would have gone over? Do you think the South Koreans would have “welcomed them with open arms”, ala, ahem, Iraq? No. So the other choice, let it play out and make your opinions strongly known through diplomatic and back channels, which the US did.
Then you have those who say that the fact that as soon as Reagan was inaugurated the first thing he did was invite Chun to meet him at the White House, which proves the US approved it. Not quite the truth. The US (again, State Dept. documents show this, I’ve seen them) told Chun to knock it off, agree to give up power at an agreed upon time, and as a reward, the US would honor him with the first visit by a foreign leader to meet the new President. It was win-win situation, but unfortunately not for the people of Kwangju.
Even after Kwangju happened the US was still pissed at Chun for quite some time. I recall a story my one of my Korean history professors told me. After Kwangju went down, the US gov. and army had orders not to talk to Chun for awhile. The USFK Commander was playing golf on Yongsan base. Chun came there to talk to him. The general politely told him he was not allowed to speak to Chun. Chun insisted, the general said no. This went back and forth. Finally a scuffle broke out between the general’s bodyguards and Chun’s bodyguards, and if my professor was correct they threw Chun and his crew off the golf course, literally.
Was Kwangju a democracy movement? I would say “yes”. Did the North Koreans have a hand in Kwangju? I would say “probably”. Did the US (with Jimmy “Human Rights” Carter at the helm) fully support Kwangju and just sat back and watched people get massacared with glee the way many Korean leftists suggest? “NO”.
Guess when this was written:
“The mobs, taking advantage of the lenient attitude of the government, have increased their activities until they amount to lawless outrages [...] The accounts of the last three days show that more than two hundred localities are now affected and large numbers of innocent persons residing therein are suffering greatly. Some have been forced to join the bandits and others are receiving immense damage to property and business.
Under these circumstances no one expects that the military forces will remain supine. If the government allows these riots to take their course the outrages will not only increase, but the movement will eventually ally itself with Bolshevism[.]”
It’s from an April 13, 1919 NYT article which printed a Japanese government statement on the Samil uprising.
It sounds rather similar to the disinformation released by the Korean government to foreign reporters during the Kwangju uprising:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_lxap4y.....nfo%29.jpg
The more things change…
Note – if you watch the news footage linked to in comment 9, what you see in the last paragraph of the above release is repeated in the NBC broadcast as it describes “citizens wounded evidently at random by other citizens”. The CBS report is the most accurate, which should be no surprise seeing as it was the only network with a correspondent actually in Kwangju.
Baduk: “All those anecdotes are all bullshit.”
Great arguement. Got me convinced…
nacho sees it the right way.
South Korea was capitalist, but was never much democratic.
It’s even more convincing to say it was a capitalist, fascist state, whose government, economy, and social system was modeled after
…
Japan.
with some of the US stuff mixed in.
Gradually, more of the US stuff made up the core of it.
Unlike Japan, Korea can say it has a 2 major party system, where the governing body has a realistic chance of being replaced based on how liberal or conservative the people feel. Wow !
Democracy as it is practiced in the US, is a rare thing to be found in the rest of the world.
South Korea took it the way Japan took it.
And now, it took a step beyond Japan.
In a way, People’s Republic of China is also a capitalist, fascist state, but there you have no way to replace the governing body.
To say it another way, the people of Kyong Sang Do used every trick in the book, to make South Korea a capitalist, fascist state.
At the expense of other -do’s.
Label someone a communist, develop their region only.
This is also classically seen in 3rd world countries. Phillipines, that I know for sure.
Those people are still worshipping Park Gyn Hye.
Also, in 3rd world countries, they worship and elect the daughters of dead dictators of the past.
Isn’t South Korea too good to be like that?
I think it is.
Unlike Japan, Korea can say it has a 2 major party system, where the governing body has a realistic chance of being replaced based on how liberal or conservative the people
[of sudo-gwon and choong chun do]
feel. Wow !
[the rest of south korea still votes by region]
If the Million man marchers were armed and shooting at the policemen, then they would have to have been killed.
On the spot.
That is what happened in Kwangju.
Analogy to the Independence War does not fly. Even today, a group of people arm themselves and shoot at the military, then there is no choice.
No choice at all.
Baduk, your argument would work if time had compressed into a single point and everything happened simultaneously. Fortunately, that is not the case at this particular dimension. Guess who shot first. And second. And third. And fourth.
It took quite a while before the protesters armed themselves.
I actually didn’t believe my parents when they told me some people still believe that bullshit spewed by Chun regime. Well, you live and learn I guess…
“That’s a terrible analogy. A much better one would be the LA riots in the 90s.”
No, THAT would be a terrible analogy. Gwangju was a protest about democracy. LA riot was a riot stemming from racial tension. Besides, the analogy is to point out that faultiness of a minor sector of a particular event(communist/ultraliberal extremist) does not define the entire event (Gwangju/Million Man) at all.
Gwangju was more than a protest. It became an armed rebellion.
The govt they were rebeling against, was it legitimate?
Was it?
Kyong Sang’s Son, the first, Park Gyn Hye’s father, he rolled in with tanks. He was couping against the govt. He should have been shot, right? He was shot after more than 2 decades.
Kyong Sang’s Son, the 2nd, General Jun Doo Hwan. Who gave him the country? The people? He took it. It’s coup. He should have been shot, right? He was rebelling against the people for personal and regional gain.
The people of Kwangju. They were in armed rebellion after trying daemo. They were rebelling against the new South Korean military govt. With guns. They should have been shot, right? You make the call.
The way Park and Chun took over is no different than the recent Thailand military coup.
they do that in 3rd world countries, too.
IF George W. Bush leveled Obama’s supporters with military, in any chosen state, and said it was for the good of the country,
What do you think would happen?
Would you cheapen it and discount it totally, because the response was with armed weapons?
I think a lot of you would write down Bush as Most Evil President Ever, and celebrate the resistance for eternity.
But, of course, that is day-dreaming.
George W. Bush would never do such a thing. And you know it, too.
He really does belong in Mount Rushmore.
32. wait, wait, wait, hold the fuck up. are you seriously going to ignore the fact that it was the troops who were shooting at the unarmed (albeit, violent) protesters first? what would you have done if you were in that situation (not that you would be–i’m sure you’d have been content with lingering in your self-imposed fascism)? stand there stupidly singing songs, chanting slogans while they shot at you? the protesters did the right thing by fighting back and defending themselves and their comrades. you’re disrespecting all the people who fought and lost their lives for democracy in gwangju that day with your rightist bullshit. you’re a fascist scum who swallow government without thinking. you fucking disgust me.
“Unlike Japan, Korea can say it has a 2 major party system, where the governing body has a realistic chance of being replaced based on how liberal or conservative the people feel. Wow !”
Yeah,but the real difference between “liberal” and “conservative” aren’t much in Korea compared to Japan.
Rho may be a liberal in the local standard,but he was pretty much a nationlist just like others in many ways.
Besides can you really expect the check-and-balance mechanism from “political parties” that come and go in every presidential elections?
Here in Japan,political parties are inpermanent stitutions belong to the groups,not the belonging of some political contenders establish in one day and tear it down the next.
Violent demonstrations and general strikes were norm in Japan from 1952 to 1970.Gwanju didn’t happen in Japan simply because the riot police used tear gas instead of live bullets and LDP politicians choose to resign before the political turmoil gets out of control.
Not that I undermine the sacrifice of the people in Gwangju in any way,though.
#33
Nope, it’s about the application of a set of principles. The Million Man March was not an armed insurrection, and the LA riots were. Many people said that the rioters had a legitimate beef, and reasoning for the things they were doing. The same has been said of those in Kwangju. Some of the LA rioters where just out looking for trouble, and some were arguably fighting for something more important. That’s why it is a better example.
You must log in to post a comment.