[KS] Re: Our Biases

[Pak, Jacqueline]

Dear list,


Thanks for good dialogues.
Reading Frank's discussions, I remembered reading once about the stark
generational differences in German scholarship regarding their Nazi past. 
Koreans certainly speak of '4.19 generation' or 'Kwangju generation', among
others.  I suppose that when we speak of a paradigm shift, we also include
a shift in generational viewpoints as well. (Yes, I know, we all are not
getting any younger.)

I used the example of An Ch'angho not to criticize the early works so much
as to demonstrate a rather exceptional case in which the ideological agenda
came to dominate the historical truth.  I felt that this case epitomized
the very problematique of overly ideologically-driven historiography vs.
empirically grounded one.

I would expect that there are fertile discussions about the legacy of Sun
Yat-sen or Gandhi, or Ataturk of Turkey, etc.  Yet, is there such an
unusual example of historiographical development on a nationalist leader? A
militarist misjudged as pacifist; an arch-patriot misconstrued as a passive
collaborator?    

I appreciate Prof. Chu's lengthy contribution which better enlightened us
about the state of scholarship on collaboration in Korea.  I am familiar
with his works.  If I may put a question to him, I have recently noticed
that he was recognized for his rather unorthodox views on So Chaep'il. 
Could he perhaps comment on this?


Best,
Jacqui 




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