[KS] Re: Still Invaded Economically and Culturally

[Jason Parker]

Thank you Vladimir. It seems that the key issue is the lack of empowerment 
among the Korean people as a whole in the world's political-economy. When 
dealing with these issues, it is very important to realize that it is not 
merely the historical facts that lead to these perceptions among Koreans 
but also the social experiences. Let us not forget that at the root of all 
human interactions are the social and cultural interpretations of these 
events and how they shape the Korean 'ethos'. It is not merely an aspect of 
military invasion, but of Western (and Japanese/ Chinese, Russian etc) 
hegemony that has created the Hermit Kingdom. Yes the Koreans have had long 
historical periods of "peace", yet I believe that these were periods of 
control from extra-Korean influences limiting their interaction and causing 
them to turn inward. There are many ways to interpret that last statement - 
I ask that you consider all possibilities, which is my intent. It might 
also be worthy of commenting that regardless of historical "facts" (used 
very loosely) about events, people do not make their judgements based on 
this but on constructed and interpreted knowledge of these events.

Jason Parker

At 07:19 PM 7/27/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Members of the List,
>with all due apologies for poking my nose into other's discussion, I would 
>like to make several remarks on the very important - and almost always 
>misinterpreted - question of the Koreans' collective "victimization" 
>complex, on their seemingly strange feeling of collective helplessness in 
>the face of the "outer forces". This complex seems to be almost unrelated 
>to the collective ego of yangbans' ChosOn Korea, with its "Sojunghwa" 
>("Little China") self-esteem and almost complete self-sufficiency, with 
>its cultural semantical  field being highly structured, tightly closed and 
>very well saturated. It is very obvious that the victimization complex 
>could take hold in the collective consciousness only in the late 19th C., 
>when all the "barbaric disturbances" began, when the country was 
>thoroughly marginalized in the newly-built imperialistic world system, and 
>when foreign soldiers came first to Seoul, to stay there until our days, 
>and without much prospects to see them going out in the foreseeable 
>future. As I remember, this question - the question of Korean peasants 
>being constantly, daily and nightly, deafened by the roar of t h e i r 
>jets - served as the "starter" for the present discussion, wasn't it? And 
>what strikes me, complete non-professional in Korean modernity, is the 
>tenacity of the foreign soldiers' hold on Korean soil in modern times. The 
>justification can be whatever you like and whatever the circumstances 
>permit - "the safeguarding of the mission against native rebellions" 
>(first Japanese troops, after 1882), "quenching of Tonghak rebellion" 
>(again Japanese, 1894),  "war with Russia, Russian threat" (Japanese, 
>1904), " foreign threats and domestic opposition to reforms and progress" 
>(the Annexation, 1910), "Liberation from Japan" (the Americans, 1945), 
>"Soviet and North Korean threat" (the Americans, until now), but the 
>result is only one - uniformed foreign males, with unrestrained sense of 
>force and superiority in their eyes, on the Seoul's streets, and the 
>Koreans, reading every year couple of new reports on American rapes of 
>their women and feeling the worst humiliation the male can feel in this 
>world  - the humiliation of a father/brother unable to save his 
>daughter/sister from the violence. I remember the story my Korean wife 
>once told me - the story of being chased once in her childhood by a 
>drunken, shouting American "warrior" - and every time I remember this, I 
>can very well understand Korean students brandishing the wooden cudgels in 
>the clashes with police over Maehyang-ri. "Let's trade the sides", as 
>Koreans like to say - what would I do in their place to preserve my human 
>dignity? And the worst thing - which is very well understood by the 
>protesting Korean students too - is that, in fact, it all seems to be done 
>in vain: after the Unification, the "Northern threat" can be changed into 
>"Chinese threat" or even "Russian question" (if Putin will be successful 
>in his attempts to recover some vestiges of Soviet imperial glory), but 
>the perennial result will be the same, pending some very radical changes 
>in the world structures of the hegemonic power. And the perennial 
>frustration, the drunken threats "to beat up one of  t h e m  if I will 
>see him luring a Korean girl" - and the sober study of English after the 
>hangover - will persist.
>I am very sorry for this too much unacademic letter, but the question of 
>the Korean feeling of being invaded - which is often misinterpreted as 
>"anti-foreignism"  - is too emotional and important to be treated so 
>superficially as it is often treated.
>
>
>At 00:48 23.07.2000, you wrote:
>>Lest we forget, China was invaded by Buddhism, just as "China" had been by
>>Confucianism.
>
>Vladimir Tikhonov,
>Department of East European and Oriental Studies,
>Faculty of Arts,
>University of Oslo,
>P.b. 1030, Blindern, 0315, Oslo, Norway.
>Fax: 47-22854140; Tel: 47-22857118
>
>----------
>



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