<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">Dear friends and foes (equally dear), 9 September 2002<BR>
<BR>
I'm sorry to have stirred such a hornet's nest, and from people whom I like and respect. Some of the responses take me back to the knockabout tone of the old open List, which (if I recall) was closed down for brawling, among other reasons. For my part, although I was avowedly polemical, I didn't write ad hominem, or not intendedly. So it's a little galling to be kicked quite so hard. But as ever, I take comfort from Kim Su-jang: komumyon huida hago, etc.<BR>
<BR>
Yet I must take the blame for generating only heat instead of light, perhaps by one or two ill-chosen words. So I apologize for offending anyone. (But no Koreans, it seems, interestingly.) At the same time, I stand by my main substantive points - which were (1) the virtues of comparativism, and (2) the harmful effect of kwago ch'ongsan on present politics and future-oriented policy-making - which went largely ignored. So let me have another try, if I may.<BR>
<BR>
1. It should go without saying, but evidently doesn't, that I claim no authority for my views. This is just my opinion, based on 20 years experience of what I conceive as a hermeneutic encounter with a great nation and its wonderful people; from which I have learnt more than I can ever repay. For that matter, I see this list - and others like it - as the nearest we can get on this earth to a Habermasian ideal speech situation: a democratic dialogue, in which all may take part. Going round impugning each others' motives doesn't seem to me helpful, or fair.<BR>
<BR>
2. Perhaps "grown-up" was a red rag. But what is "colonial" about the comparative method? My point is that one possible way forward for kwago ch'ongsan might be for Koreans to look more at other nations' histories and historiographies. When you do that, you find that, for whatever reason, in some countries this whole area is more emotionally freighted; to the point where objective academic enquiry is impeded. (Perhaps Carter Eckert might bear me out?) <BR>
<BR>
Ireland is a comparable case, which I cited simply because I happen to know it: identity as such is not the point. Yet Ireland now has a backlash against its own long dominant versions of kwago ch'ongsan, as in the satirical phrase MOPE. In my view that is healthy, because at the end of the day, when every last suppressed voice has (of course) been heard - the strictly academic debates will and should of course continue forever - then the politics of a certain kind of endlessly emphasizing victimhood arguably has negative effects. Or so many Irish now argue, and I agree with them. Is it colonial to suggest Korea might learn from this?<BR>
<BR>
Whereas elsewhere, the past, even the recent past, simply is not seen as sensitive in this way. This, in my view, is beneficial both academically and for policy-making. You may disagree with this point, but why on earth should I be called a colonialist for making it? Or for noting that Tanzania, which on almost all indices of development is way behing South Korea, might in this one criterion at least - a relaxed attitude to history - perhaps have something to teach?<BR>
<BR>
3. On confusion: perhaps I am a victim of Oxford philosophy, and its view that at least some problems can be solved by clarifying the meaning of words. To me "cleansing history" makes as much sense as "romancing toothbrush". That verb and that noun simply do not go together. History is not a thing that can be cleansed; cleansing is not a thing you can do to history. This is a category mistake. Ergo, if people set about a project which is intrinsically impossible, it is not surprising if they find no resolution, because the task is ultimately incoherent.<BR>
<BR>
This is NOT to say - do I really have to add? it appears I do - either that people who do this are stupid, or that the Korean history of the past century is not full of injustice and pain. The point is, rather, what are the appropriate procedures for righting wrongs and coming to terms with the past. Revising (not cleansing) history can be part of this, but it mainly needs political, juridical, social or psychological means. Above all, what is the aim? The one true account of contentious events, which there will never be? Or rather a political closure, whereby a nation agrees to close this chapter and move on? In my humble view, it is better to seek the latter.<BR>
<BR>
4. On compression: I was trying to be brief; and I mainly write journalism these days, so I may have some bad habits. But for shame, Frank, to call me not only a colonialist, but a Japanese colonialist to boot, for the hideous crime of identifying conflict as a problem in Korean politics, and favouring reconciliation. Not only is this (factionalism, brinkmanship, han) a staple of the political science literature, but I know literally not one Korean who is not dismayed with the current state of politics in Seoul. Far from presumimg to sit in judgment as an outsider, on this I am simply echoing everything I hear from and read by Koreans.<BR>
<BR>
5. To Mike: Sure, anyone is free to do what they like, so some can and will continue to write "mononarratives". But others are entitled to query this, hopefully without being accused of "cant" for so doing. Absolutely, we must add the previously repressed voices to the ledger. Perhaps I am too hasty in assuming that in all three of the main battle zones - the colonial era, civil war, democratization - this has now been done; with a vengeance, sometimes.<BR>
<BR>
But that's my point. What is the aim and spirit of kwago ch'ongsan? To supplement the old version as another viewpoint? Or to discard it as false? Maybe to defeat it, even punish it? To me these are absolutely crucial questions, both in general and for Korea now. Why is it cant, or self-righteous, to argue for pluralism and tolerance on epistemological and political grounds alike? Mononarratives are dangerous, not least when there is only one official school textbook. What do we want young Koreans to learn in the C21 about C20 Korea, and the big 3 cruxes in particular? Surely: all the facts, all the perspectives, and a spirit of understanding to those who sided with Park or Chun or Kims YS or DJ; who chose the ROK or the DPRK; yes, even those who "collaborated" as well as those who resisted. What's wrong with that?<BR>
<BR>
6. I am sorry to have so annoyed Prof Sasse. Also baffled, since I agree with all his points on method, and I wonder why he assumed I didn't. Of course history is constantly rewritten. But whether this is healthy depends on how it is done. Leonid Petrov makes the distinction very well. Reconsider, of course - but not liquidate. Nor manipulate, nor seek political victory.<BR>
<BR>
On historiography - big fun, yes - I was brought up on the German Methodenstreit debates. In their terms, might one suggest that kwago ch'ongsan is too idiographic: too preoccupied with Korea's particularities; and that a way forward may be nomothetic, ie to take Korea as one case among many and compare it to other colonialisms, other civil wars, other struggles for democracy? For suggesting this, do I really cause a shiver and merit instant deletion?<BR>
<BR>
7. Finally, perhaps my problem - apart from some expressions - is that I am coming from the future rather than the past, and mainly from outside the academy. My starting point is the tasks facing Korea and Koreans going forward. As it happens, each of the three big cruxes of kwago ch'ongsan corresponds to an ongoing and quite urgent political challenge:<BR>
· how to reconcile different factions and forces in South Korean politics;<BR>
· how to reconcile North and South Korea; <BR>
· how to forge better ties between both Koreas and Japan<BR>
<BR>
My case is that each and all of these vital tasks will be served better by an approach to the past which mainly involves letting go of it, distancing it, and desensitizing it, than one which reploughs endlessly over now well-tilled but forever contentious ground, thereby perpetuating controversy and conflict. I may be quite wrong or ill-informed on all this. But it does not seem a self-evidently stupid view, still less anti-Korean to suggest that conciliation is a better goal than correction. In my doubtless too terse and pointed way, I was only seeking to help.<BR>
<BR>
Aidan<BR>
<BR>
AIDAN FOSTER-CARTER<BR>
Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology & Modern Korea, Leeds University<BR>
17 Birklands Road, Shipley, West Yorkshire, BD18 3BY, UK<BR>
tel: +44(0) 1274 588586 mobile: +44(0) 7970 741307 <BR>
fax: +44(0) 1274 773663 Email: afostercarter@aol.com <BR>
<BR>
_______<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Subj: <B>Re: [KS] History's twists: thoughts on kwago ch'ongsan and the MOPE syndrome </B> <BR>
Date: 9/8/02 07:50:34 GMT Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:hoffmann@fas.harvard.edu">hoffmann@fas.harvard.edu</A> <BR>
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Highly interesting posting, in a way ...<BR>
<BR>
>My sense is that some Koreans essentialize History (capital H)<BR>
>through a mindset which, by confusing many things, guarantees that<BR>
>none of them ever get resolved.<BR>
<BR>
You tell "some Koreans" that they are "confusing many things" and <BR>
therefore are unable to get things resolved (read: to write their own <BR>
history). Hmm...<BR>
<BR>
>For instance: coming to Korea from Africa, it puzzled me how hard it<BR>
>is to have a grown-up discussion about colonialism here.<BR>
<BR>
You are seriously telling Koreans not to be "grown up" and Africans <BR>
to be "grown up"? You are in a position to tell both? How did you get <BR>
there? Is your judgment based on the hundreds of years of British <BR>
colonialism or on the hundreds of years having been colonized? Why <BR>
and how are you bringing your own identity into this discussion -- <BR>
what does it for the credibility or your argument? The British but <BR>
not so British scholar, presenting something that sounds to my ears <BR>
like an amazingly intact colonial approach while claiming your <BR>
"colonized" status at the same time .... does that help to make your <BR>
"argument" valid?<BR>
<BR>
>Endlessly refighting yesterday's battles means wounds never heal.<BR>
>Why not close the book?<BR>
>In all of the above periods, some Koreans did things for which other<BR>
>Koreans cannot forgive them. (Another question: Why does Asia's<BR>
>second most Christian nation find forgiveness so difficult?)<BR>
<BR>
Wow! Very condensed writing. Koreans are bad Christians as well ... <BR>
okay, sure. And Koreans are not united, as they cannot forgive each <BR>
other ... the old colonial Japanese argument, sure, I eat that too. <BR>
And they don't seem to know what they are doing anyway (useless <BR>
"refighting yesterday's battles"), so you (we -- the Korea <BR>
specialist?) need to tell them.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Frank<BR>
-- <BR>
______________________________________________________<BR>
Frank Hoffmann<BR>
http://KoreaWeb.ws * Fax: (415) 727-4792<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
______________<BR>
<BR>
Subj: <B>Re: [KS] History's twists: thoughts on kwago ch'ongsan and the MOPE syndrome </B> <BR>
Date: 9/9/02 01:23:10 GMT Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:mrobinso@indiana.edu">mrobinso@indiana.edu</A> <BR>
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Dear List: </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">If I may chime in on Historical accounts again. It might be inconvenient for historians of Korea to deal with or respond to those who see history with the capital H as in the final truth.....but it is simply an occupational hazard. 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. In my reading of kwago chongsan there is a reasonable meaning of balancing accounts.....whereby previously repressed voices are recorded on the leger. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Mike R.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"><BR>
___________<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Subj: <B>Re: [KS] History's twists: thoughts on kwago ch'ongsan and the MOPE syndrome </B> <BR>
Date: 9/9/02 03:05:07 GMT Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:werner_sasse@hotmail.com">werner_sasse@hotmail.com</A> <BR>
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
Well done, Frank, short as your remarks are: there are many other points in the posting that made me shiver, but I am sure most on the list had the same feeling, so I do not want to go into detail. I am glad to have a "delete" button on the keyboard.Just another short reminder to the use of the word "h/H-istory". When we talk about "history" , the word is really meaning "historiography", and to rewrite the view of the past is both a normal everyday process and a healthy one. Add another one: For us non-Koreans it is certainly not the question what is "right or wrong" in the way this Korean debate is going on. The question should be "why", and it should be added "why is my view different". A good way to learn something about the Korean situation, and maybe more importantly to learn something about ourselves....Anyway, histeriography is always big fun, Werner Sasse <BR>
<BR>
__________<BR>
<BR>
Subj: [KS] Gwageo cheongsan (Kwageon ch'eongsan) <BR>
Date: 9/9/02 04:42:35 GMT Daylight Time<BR>
From: petrov@coombs.anu.edu.au<BR>
Reply-to: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<BR>
To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<BR>
Sent from the Internet (Details) <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Dear list members,<BR>
As Professor Choe correctly mentioned, the term "ch'Ongsan" alone certainly<BR>
stands for "cleansing". But in combination with "kwagO" it probably should<BR>
be considered differently. I would suggest translating the term "kwagO<BR>
ch'Ongsan" as "coming to terms with the past (and starting the life again)",<BR>
which is probably very close to what Aidan Foster-Carter is arguing for.<BR>
<BR>
But "kwagO ch'Ongsan" can also be translated as "critical reconsideration of<BR>
the past" which has been a long-standing issue for Korean nationalist<BR>
historiography. For example, Paek Nam-un opened his "Socio-economic History<BR>
of Korea" (1933) with a brief allusion to the "age of critical<BR>
reconsideration of Korean history research" [ChsOnsa-ui yOn'gu pip'anjOgin<BR>
ch'Onsangi].<BR>
<BR>
Indeed, in the 1920s and 1930s, Korean historians were reconsidering the<BR>
past, NOT "cleansing" or "liquidating" it. However, in the 1950s and 1960s,<BR>
many of them (particularly those who moved to the North) busied themselves<BR>
"rectifying the past" and "righting past wrongs." This time, they were quite<BR>
literally doctoring history in accordance with Party concerns and Leader's<BR>
recommendations...<BR>
<BR>
LEONID A. PETROV<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"><BR>
__________<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Subj: <B>[KS] History's twists: thoughts on kwago ch'ongsan and the MOPE syndrome </B> <BR>
Date: 9/8/02 06:31:20 GMT Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:Afostercarter@aol.com">Afostercarter@aol.com</A> <BR>
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A> <BR>
CC: <A HREF="mailto:choeyh@hawaii.edu">choeyh@hawaii.edu</A> <BR>
File: <B>kshisttwist8sep02.doc</B> (23040 bytes) DL Time (32000 bps): < 1 minute <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">For Korean Studies List completed 8 September, 2002<BR>
<BR>
<B>History's twists: thoughts on kwago ch'ongsan and the MOPE syndrome</B><BR>
<BR>
If - as I hoped it might - this discussion has now burst the bounds of the purely linguistic, I should like to strongly support Prof Yong-ho Choe's critique of kwago ch'ongsan as such. <BR>
<BR>
My sense is that some Koreans essentialize History (capital H) through a mindset which, by confusing many things, guarantees that none of them ever get resolved. Philosophically, the notion of "cleansing the past" is just a category error. History can be interpreted and debated endlessly, but it can't be changed. Shaking a fist at history is pointless. By all means uncover new facts or offer fresh interpretations, but these will always be multiple There is no single right account, factually or morally, nor ever could be. So why go on a wild goose chase?<BR>
<BR>
For instance: coming to Korea from Africa, it puzzled me how hard it is to have a grown-up discussion about colonialism here. In this at least, Africa is well ahead of Korea. Teaching in Tanzania barely a decade after British rule had ended, despite a highly politicized atmosphere of anti-imperialism, there was neither personal nor academic animus involved in researching the colonial past. (It helps, of course, if you call it colonialism rather than occupation, not least in avoiding divisive and fruitless arguments about so-called "collaborators".)<BR>
<BR>
One lesson here is the merits of comparativism. Koreans should get more interested in other peoples' colonial histories. This helps to put your own fate in context, and avoid the solipsism which some wag, in another nation rather given to self-pity (my motherland), has named the MOPE syndrome: Most Oppressed People Ever. As an Irishman, my 800 years of oppression trump your mere 40 any day. But why would anyone want to play this game in the first place?<BR>
<BR>
The academy aside, what really worries me is how kwago ch'ongsan holds present and future policy choices hostage to the past. This is downright dangerous. For example, many Koreans give China the benefit of the doubt, but never Japan. (I call this "penultimate oppressor love"; just so do some Latvians forgive the Germans everything, the Russians nothing.) Yet on any objective criteria of shared interests, today's South Korea and Japan should be close allies, whereas China's future is a question mark. Past hurts are no basis for taking such decisions.<BR>
<BR>
On contentious matters within living memory - the colonial era, the civil war, the struggle for democracy - then those who demand a reckoning should think very hard what it is exactly they want, and why. If crimes are yet unpunished, then the proper court is the law as such, not history. As for the inevitable political dimension, what is the goal: reconciliation, or revenge? How can kwago ch'ongsan help those in South Korea who supported or opposed dictatorship to kiss and make up - much less those who took sides between capitalism and communism? Endlessly refighting yesterday's battles means wounds never heal. Why not close the book?<BR>
<BR>
In all of the above periods, some Koreans did things for which other Koreans cannot forgive them. (Another question: Why does Asia's second most Christian nation find forgiveness so difficult?) But peoples, like individuals, need to heal and move on. In all three of these eras, honourable men and women, as well as knaves, faced difficult, sometimes life-threatening choices. Some went one way, some another. It is time now for understanding, not reproach. <BR>
<BR>
I look forward to the special issue of Korea Journal. Besides elucidating specific debates and issues, I hope Prof Choe's challenge will be addressed. In that spirit, let me end polemically. As regards kwago ch'ongsan's effects, the best 'translation' has to be "Twisting history". Its development was misguided; its significance lies under social pathology; and if either Korean historiography or politics are to move forward, the urgent future task is to smash this murky prism and adopt a more pluralistic, inclusive, and tolerant approach to both past and present.<BR>
<BR>
AIDAN FOSTER-CARTER<BR>
Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology & Modern Korea, Leeds University<BR>
17 Birklands Road, Shipley, West Yorkshire, BD18 3BY, UK<BR>
tel: +44(0) 1274 588586 mobile: +44(0) 7970 741307 <BR>
fax: +44(0) 1274 773663 Email: afostercarter@aol.com <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 9/7/02 11:08:10 GMT Daylight Time, choeyh@hawaii.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:<B>Re: [KS] Gwageo cheongsan (Kwageon ch'eongsan) </B><BR>
Date:9/7/02 11:08:10 GMT Daylight Time<BR>
From:<A HREF="mailto:choeyh@hawaii.edu">choeyh@hawaii.edu</A><BR>
Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A><BR>
To:<A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A>, <A HREF="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</A><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE><I>Sent from the Internet </I><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I challenge the basic notion of "kwago ch'ongsan" or cleansing the <BR>
past. How can one cleanse the past? One can only study and learn lessons <BR>
from the past so that we do not repeat same mistakes. There is no way one <BR>
can undo the past. The current trend of "kwago ch'ongsan" in S. Korea is <BR>
inclined to finger-pointing, rather than making soul-searching examinations <BR>
of the past mistakes. If one needs a "kwago ch'ongsan," it should be left <BR>
to historians to examine comprehensively---free of prejudgment---complex <BR>
factors and circumstances within which one may have acted in certain ways <BR>
in the past. I raise this question because I am alarmed by the recent <BR>
attempt of "kwago ch'ongsan" dealing with the issue of the collaboration <BR>
under the Japanese colonial rule.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
At 04:49 PM 9/5/2002 -0500, Michael Robinson wrote:<BR>
>Dear Korea Journal:<BR>
><BR>
>An interesting question to be sure. my first thought for translation was <BR>
>"settling accounts from the past". I then read to the bottom of your <BR>
>message at see that in the Korean context there is more than a neutral <BR>
>balancing of accounts....but more a desire to insert the idea of <BR>
>correcting previously poorly kept and inaccurate accounts. I would <BR>
>suggest the neutral idea of balance.<BR>
><BR>
>And for the wider audience of the list, I find it interesting that the <BR>
>Journal's question arrives on the same day that our friend in Hungary is <BR>
>asking about the politics of memory. In response to his query....you <BR>
>might consider that the era post-1945 is both a time of actively <BR>
>"forgetting" as well as a struggle to selectively remember. My sense is <BR>
>that if we are to discuss some "Korean tradition" with regard to <BR>
>memorialization, we must consider the long history and active present of <BR>
>hagiography both official and private in Korean society. Statues, parks, <BR>
>grandiose buildings, etc. are new....the idea of spinning the memory of <BR>
>one's relatives or working to resurrect the name of same....has been an <BR>
>active Korean pastime for a very long time. The Korea Journal question <BR>
>falls as a project somewhere between official memory...that cultivated and <BR>
>enshrined by the state...and the private cultivation of memory in <BR>
>foundations, collected writings, genealogies, etc.<BR>
><BR>
>Mike Robinson<BR>
>----- Original Message -----<BR>
>From: <mailto:kj@unesco.or.kr>Korea Journal<BR>
>To: <mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws>Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<BR>
>Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:09 AM<BR>
>Subject: [KS] Gwageo cheongsan (Kwageon ch'eongsan)<BR>
><BR>
>Dear list members,<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>The KOREA JOURNAL will deal with the special issue titled <BR>
>"Gwageo cheongsan (MR: Kwago ch'ongsan) in Korean Modern History" in its <BR>
>2002 autumn issue. Articles in this issue will analyze the development, <BR>
>significance and future tasks concerning gwageo cheongsan. Articles to be <BR>
>published in this special issue are as follows.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>1. "Gwageo cheongsan" in Modern Korean History<BR>
>2. Refracted Modernity and the Issue of Pro-Japanese Collaborators in Korea<BR>
>3. How To Reveal the Iceberg under the Sea?: The Problems in Historical <BR>
>Clarification of the Korean War<BR>
>4. The Significance of "gwageo cheongsan" of the December 12 Coup and<BR>
>the May 18 Gwangju Uprising<BR>
>5. Attempted "gwageo choengsan" in April Popular Struggle<BR>
>6. Finding the Truth on the Suspicious Deaths Under South Koreas Military <BR>
>Dictatorship<BR>
>7. State Violence and Sacrifices under Military Authoritarianism <BR>
>and Dynamics of "gwageo cheongsan" during Democratic Transition<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>However, we have had difficulty in translating "gwageo cheongsan" into an <BR>
>appropriate English term. Some alternatives have been suggested such as <BR>
>"dealing with the wrong past," "liquidating the past," "rectifying the <BR>
>past," and "righting past wrongs," but none of these is satisfactory. We <BR>
>ask anyone who is struck with a good idea regarding this matter to let us know.<BR>
><BR>
>Sincerely,<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Korea Journal<BR>
<BR>
Yong-ho Choe<BR>
Department of History<BR>
University of Hawaii at Manoa<BR>
Honolulu, HI 96822<BR>
<BR>
Tel: 808 956-6762<BR>
Fax: 808 956-9600<BR>
E-mail: choeyh@hawaii.edu<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>