[KS] Peer Gynt??

Sun Feb 7 19:46:17 EST 1999

--------------3BF09F99060C798AF5A812DF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear List,

Well, Mr. De Ceuster seems to have located the point where, so long ago it
seems now, the discussion about collaboration took a wrong turn.  As he wrote,
"When I look back upon Mr. Goodwin's initial question, I see a major problem
looming. Did he not ask for information on pro Japanese collaborators covering
the period from the late 19th century until 1945 ?."

Mr. De Ceuster then continued: "Lumping all Koreans who had some
sympathy/affinity with Japan at the end of the 19th Century together with 1940s
Koreans who spoke out in support of the Japanese war effort seems to take its
lead from the collaboration publications of the late 1980s - early 1990s. In
other words, the question as it was asked clearly seems to be determined by the
Korean term of "ch'inilp'a" which is not in itself a negative term, but has
been used randomly -but  deliberately at the same time- to label all late 19thC
attempts at modernization as tainted by collaborationist motives."

I just wanted to emphasize something I said to Jaqueline Pak some time ago: my
quoting Duus' work to frame my question was incautious.  But the question
itself was not, as Mr. De Ceuster suggests, " determined by the Korean term
'ch'inilp'a'".  This is because it couldn't have been; i.e. when I first framed
my question, I hadn't the slightest idea what the term meant.

The only reason I mention this now is because of something else Mr. De Ceuster
mentioned; i.e. that the term ch'inilp'a, "has been used randomly --but
deliberately [my emphasis] at the same time--  to label all 19th century
attempts at modernization tainted by collaborationist motives."

I just wanted to clarify that such labelling was not at all on my mind as I
wrote my initial question. Having carefully read Koen's analysis (the one
Jacqueline Pak forward to the list on his behalf) I can that I inadvertently
"tapped into" this current of random and deliberate labeling.

As you all now know from the introduction I recently posted at the request of a
list member, while I do have some professional qualifications, I don't have a
Ph.D. in Korean Studies.  And I also have to admit that, while I've lived in
Korea for 2 years, I did little else but work while I was there, and that kept
me from enrolling in Korean language classes.  (I'm now studying with the wife
of a man who has come to Canada to obtain his Master of Divinity).  Anyway, to
use an image from Bruce Cumings' 1987 essay, "The Division of Korea" (in "Two
Koreas - One Future?" eds. Sullivan, J. and R. Foss. Lanham, MD. University
Press of America) perhaps I am a bit like Peer Gynt: "the well intentioned
bumbler, doing ill when [he] tries so hard to do well, never quite sure how it
all happened?" (p.6)

If I am a Peer Gynt (and it clearly seems that I am), then I'm a Peer Gynt who
listens and wants to learn.  In particular, I have listened to Koen who
concluded his remarks this way: "... in order to deal with the issue of
collaboration -regardless of how you define this term- a thorough grasp of the
history of the colonial period is imperative."

To that end, I'll now dive directly into Michael Robinson's book, and into all
the other references the group has so kindly provided.  I can only speak for
myself, but I can say that I've learned a tremendous amount --if in a way I
hadn't anticipated-- by reading you over the last 4 days as you attempted to
work out this problem.  I can only feel grateful and I would like thank
everyone.

Sincerely,

Mike Goodwin
goodwin at nas.net

--------------3BF09F99060C798AF5A812DF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
Dear List,

Well, Mr. De Ceuster seems to have located the point where, so long
ago it seems now, the discussion about collaboration took a wrong turn. 
As he wrote, "When I look back upon Mr. Goodwin's initial question, I see
a major problem looming. Did he not ask for information on pro Japanese
collaborators covering the period from the late 19th century until 1945
?."

Mr. De Ceuster then continued: "Lumping all Koreans who had some sympathy/affinity
with Japan at the end of the 19th Century together with 1940s Koreans who
spoke out in support of the Japanese war effort seems to take its lead
from the collaboration publications of the late 1980s - early 1990s. In
other words, the question as it was asked clearly seems to be determined
by the Korean term of "ch'inilp'a" which is not in itself a negative term,
but has been used randomly -but  deliberately at the same time- to
label all late 19thC attempts at modernization as tainted by collaborationist
motives."

I just wanted to emphasize something I said to Jaqueline Pak some time
ago: my quoting Duus' work to frame my question was incautious.  But
the question itself was not, as Mr. De Ceuster suggests, " determined by
the Korean term 'ch'inilp'a'".  This is because it couldn't have been;
i.e. when I first framed my question, I hadn't the slightest idea what
the term meant.

<P>The only reason I mention this now is because of something else Mr.
De Ceuster mentioned; i.e. that the term ch'inilp'a, "has been used randomly
--but <U>deliberately</U> [my emphasis] at the same time--  to label
all 19th century attempts at modernization tainted by collaborationist
motives."

I just wanted to clarify that such labelling was not at all on my mind
as I wrote my initial question. Having carefully read Koen's analysis (the
one Jacqueline Pak forward to the list on his behalf) I can that I inadvertently
"tapped into" this current of random and deliberate labeling.

As you all now know from the introduction I recently posted at the request
of a list member, while I do have some professional qualifications, I don't
have a Ph.D. in Korean Studies.  And I also have to admit that, while
I've lived in Korea for 2 years, I did little else but work while I was
there, and that kept me from enrolling in Korean language classes. 
(I'm now studying with the wife of a man who has come to Canada to obtain
his Master of Divinity).  Anyway, to use an image from Bruce Cumings'
1987 essay, "The Division of Korea" (in "Two Koreas - One Future?" eds.
Sullivan, J. and R. Foss. Lanham, MD. University Press of America) perhaps
I am a bit like Peer Gynt: "the well intentioned bumbler, doing ill when
[he] tries so hard to do well, never quite sure how it all happened?" (p.6)

If I am a Peer Gynt (and it clearly seems that I am), then I'm a Peer
Gynt who listens and wants to learn.  In particular, I have listened
to Koen who concluded his remarks this way: "... in order to deal with
the issue of collaboration -regardless of how you define this term- a thorough
grasp of the history of the colonial period is imperative."

To that end, I'll now dive directly into Michael Robinson's book, and
into all the other references the group has so kindly provided.  I
can only speak for myself, but I can say that I've learned a tremendous
amount --if in a way I hadn't anticipated-- by reading you over the last
4 days as you attempted to work out this problem.  I can only feel
grateful and I would like thank everyone.

<P>Sincerely,

<P>Mike Goodwin
<BR>goodwin at nas.net
<BR> 
<BR> </HTML>

--------------3BF09F99060C798AF5A812DF--

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%