[KS] Yu Kilchun

[Frank Hoffmann]

With its idealistic notions of social progress and failure this is, 
same as his texts on the history of other European nations and his 
writing in general, written under the influence of contemporary 
British and American historians. Works by non- if not 
anti-neo-Darwinist historians such as Leopold von Ranke and many 
other important historians -- works that at the time still informed a 
majority of continental Europeans, have not found their way to Yu. Or 
maybe it really just was a pick-and-choose situation, a conscious 
choice, a matter of what appealed to a reformist leader from an 
economically and politically stagnating country on the verge of being 
annexed by its neighbor. Yet again, while this is certainly the 
leading historiographical take on this issue, we should note that 
this understanding grew right out of the American neo-Weberian (and 
still neo-Darwinist) historigraphic tradition. We might well ask why 
such views were at the time not really that popular in other nations 
with similar plights ... say for example Poland. Anyone still 
following me -);  

Okay then: During the entire 19th century Poland was, just like 
Korea, fighting over its independence -- here with the Russians, the 
Austrians, and the Germans. Just like Korea a country with a great 
and old culture, in political and economic terms it lost out step by 
step to its neighbors. Polish provinces fell under Russian 
administration and German farmers settled in Silesia and took over 
Polish lands. As a result, by 1900 over a million Poles had 
emmigrated to the United States. Several diplomatic as well as 
military attempts to regain independence had failed.
But other than for Korean reform and independence movement scholars 
neo-Darwinism did not so easily become the great runner in Poland. 
Maybe because Poland is overwhelmingly Catholic? It certainly seems 
so, as neo-Darwinian theory is incompatible with Christian faith 
(clearly stated so in harmony by both, the Catholic Church and 
neo-Darwinist thinkers).

We now have a convincing explanation for Poland. But how about other 
continental European nations? Why was neo-Darwinism here of some 
appeal during the late 19th century but never really took the lead in 
teh pool of new ideologies? Why so in Great Britain and in the United 
States? In short, my main doubt as regards to Korea and neo-Darwinism 
concerns the *inevitability* in which histories have recorded Korea's 
embracing of such pseudo-scientific ideology.


Best,
Frank
-- 
--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreaweb.ws