<html>
Hi,<br>
<br>
Yes, you are right, and I am wrong - the right name is Yi YOnghun. The
article that I read, was actually published in August 2002 <Sin
DongA>:
<a href="http://www.donga.com/docs/magazine/new_donga/200208/nd2002080500.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.donga.com/docs/magazine/new_donga/200208/nd2002080500.html</a><br>
<br>
Thank you very much for the info on his book - I will try to find it
somehow. I could understand that this new way of interpreting Late Choson
agrarian history is novel and unconventional, and aspire to learn
more!<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
V.Tikhonov (Pak Noja) teurim <br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:29 10.09.2002 -0700, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Hi. I would like to note just
one small correction. It is not Yi Suhun, but Yi YOnghun. He
is a professor of Economics Department at the SNU. I agree with you
that we should pay more attention to new waves of Korean
scholarship. In that regard, I would like to recommend a book,
Matchil Ui nongmindUl, edited by An PyOngjik and Yi YOnghun if you have
not yet known this one. This book is a product of joint research
effort based on the readings of TaejOri Pak-ssi komunsO. You may
find some surprisingly different views that depart from conventional ones
on the social and economic conditions of 19th century rural Korea.<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Sun Joo Kim<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>From: Vladimir Tikhonov
<vladimir.tikhonov@east.uio.no><br>
Reply-To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<br>
To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<br>
Subject: RE: [KS] Gwageo cheongsan (Kwageon ch'eongsan)<br>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:40:50 +0200<br>
<br>
Just in connection to what Koen is saying: I am strongly fascinated with
many new approaches younger Korean historians of the later 1990s - early
2000s apply to their past. For one thing, take Yi Suhun's theory on
"sonong sahwe" ("small farmers-centered society")
recently debated in <Sin DongA>. Yi shows - and quite convincingly
- that old Kim YongsOp's idea on the "growth of larger-scale
commercial farming" in Late Choson is not factually true - the
average size of land holdings was actually growing little smaller,
although productivity did rise to some degree, mostly due to technical
innovations (irrigation, etc.). Then, Yi argues that, although small
scale and partly commercialized farming did not translate into the
"sprouts of capitalism" itself (and, this, "neajae palchOn
ron" was a rather far-fetched thing), it could support the
development of "transplanted capitalism" -
"transplanted" by Japanese colonial bureaucracy, and Yi
explicitly admits it! - for it already developed the socio-psychological
basis for acceptance of the main capitalistic norms, like private
ownership of the land. I do not think that theory explains everything in
Korea's modern transition, but it is a great progress in comparison with
Kim YongsOpian arguments - progress, largely unnoticed outside of Korea!
Or look at how the attitudes on Hwang SayOng's famous "silk
letter" did obviously change - many historians (Cho gwang, HO
DonghyOn, and some others) view it now as a "quest for human rights
and religious freedom" rather than "national treason".
Many other things are speedily changing as well: "Patriotic
Enlightenment Movement"'s "statist" (kukkajuUi-jOk)
ideology is being actively problematized and linked both to the following
acceptance of Japanese colonial ideology and authoritarian courses of
post-colonial development. All these things, in fact, represent gradual
"phasing out" of the nationalistic meta-narrative on the part
of very significant sector of S.Korea's historic community. The strength
of nationalistic versions is partly residual and partly explainable by
various political commitments - but to say that S.Korean historiography
as a whole is "nationalistic" now would be tantamount to saying
that "Western scholars are generally Orientalist and implicitly
racist". Both statements are not completely untrue, but the
progressive part of the spectrum gets un/misrepresented.<br>
One thing I dare to suggest is: would not it be better, instead of
debating "their" "sins of nationalism", simply try to
monitor in this List what is being published in Korean historical
journals? We will get lots of useful stuff for the classrooms.<br>
<br>
V.Tikhonov<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:37 10.09.2002 +0200, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Without intending to go at it ad
hominem, I think TN Park's reply to Geri<br>
Ledyard's posting clearly shows that we need to take a closer look at
what<br>
exactly historians are saying when they talk about kwago ch'ongsan.
An<br>
impression I have had for quite some time now, is that we (the
foreign<br>
Korean Studies community in general) are mired in the alleged
stranglehold<br>
of nationalist historiography. We somehow fail to see that the
acrimonious<br>
tone of the 1980-90s (though still there in some instances), has
been<br>
superseded by a less politicized, but all the more path breaking<br>
historiography. Over the enduring drone of nationalist rhetoric, we seem
to<br>
have overlooked these inspiring developments.<br>
Rather than to work ourselves into a temper about the term, it would
be<br>
worthwhile to wait and see how the authors of the Korea Journal articles
go<br>
about 'atoning for the past.' Maybe we can then have a less speculative
and<br>
more informed debate.<br>
<br>
Koen De Ceuster<br>
<br>
<br>
Forgive me if I make a point that has already been made, but the<br>
Martin/Chang explanation ("burying one's past [call it quits with],
and<br>
turing over a new leaf") seems to fit with the idea as I have heard
it used<br>
in public here. Specifically, during the mid-1990s, when then-President
Kim<br>
Youngsam was explaining why he thought the nation would be better
off<br>
destroying the former Colonial Capitol (1926-1945) which later was used
as<br>
the ROK Capitol (from 1948 to the mid-1980s) and the National Museum
(from<br>
the late 1980s to the mid-1990s).<br>
<br>
I am working from memory here, but I believe the Korea Herald and
Korea<br>
Times both translated the President's words by saying that razing
the<br>
building was necessary to "cleanse Korea's history" and to
"set its history<br>
right." Even if the term he used was not *kwag?ch'?gsan* exactly,
it<br>
appears that such sentiments are shared with that term as it is
used<br>
publicly.<br>
<br>
As some have suggested here, the *kwag?ch'?gsan* concept may
originally<br>
have been at the heart of a noble effort to allow to be heard
dissenting<br>
voices that had formerly been suppressed. However, in politics and in
the<br>
press, and thus in public discourse, the concept has taken on an ugly
form<br>
that seems more agenda-driven than anything else: selective focus or
neglect<br>
on points that will support the point-of-view of the group.<br>
<br>
The term may not be a neologism in the sense of the word's creation,
but<br>
this new usage itself may be neologistic. Various "anti-isms"
(e.g.,<br>
anti-Japanesism, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-leftism, and
other<br>
anti-xxx sentiments) are not just being appropriated by political and
social<br>
leaders, but are also being exacerbated by them and their groups to
achieve<br>
short-term ends. The fact that Lee Hoi-chang's father's alleged
pro-Japanese<br>
activities are an issue in the current presidential campaign, despite
having<br>
occurred some six decades ago, is an example of the power of such
anti-isms.<br>
<br>
Early in this discussion, I believe someone had suggested that the way
the<br>
term is being applied is not aimed at resolving these problems. I
would<br>
wholeheartedly agree. Resolving the problems would be antithetical to
the<br>
interests of those who are promoting certain anti-isms, which is to
augment<br>
support for them in the political and/or social arenas.<br>
<br>
A Korean-born professor of mine at Yonsei University once remarked in
a<br>
Modern Korean History class that there were many things he can tell us
about<br>
Korean-Japanese relations in our English-language courses that he
"would<br>
never say" in his Korean-language lectures for fear of his job. His
own<br>
explanation was one that paralleled my own experience: by deviating from
the<br>
sanitized "history" that Koreans have learned in school -- even
at the<br>
university level -- he risked criticism that could go so far as the<br>
demanding of his removal. We have had similar experiences in public
radio<br>
program content development.<br>
<br>
This, I contend, is part of the result of such efforts to
"cleanse" or "make<br>
right" Korean history. It is a potentially dangerous trend that will
result<br>
in a squelching of dialogue, not the promotion of it.<br>
<br>
T'NP</blockquote><br>
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>
<br>
----------</blockquote><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sun Joo Kim<br>
Assistant Professor of Korean History<br>
EALC, Harvard University<br>
2 Divinity Ave.<br>
Cambridge, MA 02138<br>
Tel: 617)495-7539<br>
Fax: 617)496-6040<br>
e-mail: sjkim@fas.harvard.edu<br>
<br>
<br>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
<a href="http://mobile.msn.com/" eudora="autourl">http://mobile.msn.com</a><br>
<br>
</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>
</html>