<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>V. Tikhonov raises an important issue here.
I, for one, have more than once made the mistake of reifying Korean views
generalizing from a small sample to the whole. More often than not this is
my own laziness...or the desire to create a simple strawdog at which to
shoot. On both sides of the divide (non-Korean and Korean historians of
Korea) there is a tendency to simplify the positions of the other. I
recently endured a three hour lambasting at Kodae on the issue of whether or not
one can speak of modernity and colonialism in the same breath. The
discussion never left the general issue of the rights and wrongs of how to view
Japanese colonialism in Korea. The anxiety that drove my critics seems to
be the worry (overtly stated) that if Western historians were to
re-cast the issue of Japanese colonialism in Korea, then ordinary people would
be "mislead" about the historical facts of the Korea-Japan relationship in the
20th century. There was much of the feeling of a young group of Korean
historians intent on protecting or defending one "correct" narrative over
another. What I found most disheartening ws the lack of argument about
interpretive issues or new historical questions, or assessment of sources.
It was mostly about a projection of how one narrative might be construed by
ordinary people. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And on the issue of reifying various historical
lines. This summer's issue of YOksa pip'yOng does a fine job of promoting
the view of a generalized north american (incorrect) line of historical
inquiry....neatly unified around a teacher disciple network. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mike R. </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=vladimir.tikhonov@east.uio.no
href="mailto:vladimir.tikhonov@east.uio.no">Vladimir Tikhonov</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
href="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 09, 2002 7:08
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [KS] History's twists:
thoughts on kwago ch'ongsan and the MOPE syndrome</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Judging from my experience of contacts with the people from the
"headquarters" of "yOksa ch'Ongsan", The Minjok munje yOn'guso, there is no
"unified" narrative of "clean" past there. Those who invoke the motif of
"settling the scores with the past", seem to represent, at least several very
different political/cultural agendas. There are "traditional" nationalists who
seek to further "glorify" the exiles' "independence struggle" (Kim WOnung, the
MP who leads the "ch'Ongsan" campaign in parliament, seemingly belongs to this
category - he has grown up in the clan with strong "hangil minjok undong"
credentials). But there are also the moderate academic progressives: the
people who are academically interested in tracing down the links between the
Late Choson, colonial and South Korean post-colonial elites, but certainly are
not going to "pugwan ch'amsi" the "collaborators". Serious scholars, like Ha
WOnho, and popular history writers, like Yi DOgil, seem to be closer to this
direction of work. Then, there are certainly some left radicals, who seek to
undermine South Korea's ruling elite's national(ist) credentials through
playing up the question of the colonial roots of "their" wealth and power (in
some cases, like that of Yi Hwech'ang, the colonial roots are only too
obvious...). But this last group's influence seems to be rapidly diminishing
recently, given the general trend of questioning leftist nationalist
meta-narrative in S.K. academia (look, for example, how An ByOngjik, former
"minjung" theoretic, changed his views recently). All in all, the use of one
and the same semi-Confucian slogan of "YOksa ch'Ongsan" should not obscure the
diversity and huge internal contradictions inside the movement. The worst
mistake foreign "Korean experts" usually make is to lump "all them" together
on ethnic (and, I feel, in many cases unconsciously even on racial)
grounds...<BR><BR>V.Tikhonov <BR><BR><BR><BR>At 07:02 09.09.2002 +1000, you
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial>> If we
self righteously claim that we see history as multiple voices then why the
cant against some Korean historians that might want to distill their
version into a single mononarrative.....against all reason. Let
them. AFterall isn't it just another of the many voices and narratives
that history produces. <BR> <BR>Yes. But many people in Korea
tend to believe that this is the only true narrative. The use of the term
'kwago ch'ongsan' tesifies to this. This meant to be the 'clean' historty
while other narratives are 'polluted'.<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT
face=arial>> In my reading of kwago chongsan there is a reasonable
meaning of balancing accounts.....whereby previously repressed voices are
recorded on the leger. <BR>The problem is that old heresy does not
necessirily behave nicely when it is promoted to a new
orthodoxy.</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT face=arial>Andrei Lankov </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP>Vladimir Tikhonov,<BR>Department of East European and Oriental
Studies,<BR>Faculty of Arts,<BR>University of Oslo,<BR>P.b. 1030, Blindern,
0315, Oslo, Norway.<BR>Fax: 47-22854140; Tel: 47-22857118<BR>
<HR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>