[KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980

[don kirk]

That "usual" definition may be true, but there's no question the Chun regime was the authority whether you liked it or not. I'm aware that academics love to quibble over the word, but nonethless you can't get away from it. It's not meant as approbation of the regime, or criticism of the rebels (you may not like that word either). It's just what it was, plain and simple, regardless of the nature of the regime and the response.
Don

--- On Tue, 11/15/11, Balazs Szalontai <aoverl at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


From: Balazs Szalontai <aoverl at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980
To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 7:13 AM





"Revolt" is usually defined as "rebellion or uprising against authority/constituted authority/the authority of the state." This implies, either directly or indirectly, that the regime against which said revolt was directed, constituted some sort of legitimate authority. It is questionable, to put it mildly, whether Chun Doo Hwan's putschist regime might be regarded as such a legitimate authority. "Resistance" sounds more appropriate, taking into consideration the reactive nature of the first protests. One might argue that it was more the paratroopers' brutality than Chun's takeover as such that triggered the protests, or aggravated them to such an extent that led to a military intervention. In this sense, "resistance" might be actually preferable to "uprising."
 
Concerning North Korea's role, the Hungarian documents I saw also confirm that throughout 1979-80, the DPRK adopted a wait-and-see attitude. Still, the Chinese leadership may have been concerned about what Pyongyang might do, and may have tried to discourage North Korea from any "adventurous" action, because during the tumultuous events before and after Chun's coup, the North Koreans implemented various security measures along the Sino-DPRK border, and made allusions to Chinese pressure. 
 
Balazs Szalontai 
East China Normal University
 




From: don kirk <kirkdon at yahoo.com>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2011, 19:31
Subject: Re: [KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980






What's wrong with calling it the "Kwangju revolt" -- doesn't that cover everything? (Yes, I was there.)
Don Kirk
--- On Tue, 11/15/11, Don Baker <ubcdbaker at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Don Baker <ubcdbaker at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980
To: "Bulletin Board Electronic" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 12:49 AM






Personally, I prefer a much less used name for what happened in Kwangju in May, 1980--the Kwangju Resistance Movement. After all, "democracy movement" is too tame for what went on there (armed resistance to government brutality) and "uprising" implies that the people in Kwangju rose up first rather than rising up only after the government  viciously attacked them. However, I, too, am usually forced to use one of the more common labels you mention, since, if I write "Kwangju Resistance movement," I have to explain why I use that unusual label.   

There is a difference in the way most Koreans use "Kwangju Uprising" and "Kwangju Democracy Movement."   Kwangju Democracy Movement was not what it was called in Kwangju in the 1980s (then it was called the "Kwangju massacre"). That term was imposed as a way to downplay how violent those ten days in Kwangju were. So people who want to treat what happened in Kwangju as simply one manifestation of the the broader peaceful democratization movement in the 1970s and 1980s refer to it as a democracy movement. However, those who see Kwangju citizens as inspired by a burning desire for both democracy and social justice prefer to call it the Kwangju Minjung Hangjaeng. I suspect that's what people are thinking of when they talk about the "Kwangju People's Uprising." Only a few of those who were actually in Kwangju in May, 1980, would use that term. Those who were there realize that the vast majority of the participants in the citizens' uprising were not thinking
 of about broader issues of democracy and social justice. They were primarily concerned with saving their lives and the lives of their friends and family members. In other words, the "Kwangju Uprising" was mostly about self-defense, as well as anger at gratuitous military brutality.  Don Baker  
Professor
Department of Asian Studies 
University of British Columbia 
Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z2 
don.baker at ubc.ca

Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:51:17 -0800 From: djtorrey at yahoo.com To: koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws Subject: [KS] (no subject) 

Dear List Members,

Forgive my ignorance, but in English-speaking circles, is it acceptable to refer to what happened in Kwangju in May 1980 as "The Kwangju Uprising"? I see both "Kwangju [People's] Uprising" and "Kwangju Democracy Movement" used interchangeably, although in Korean-language sources, in line with the official re-naming in 1988, the proper name is the translation of "Kwangju Democracy Movement," that is, 광주 민주화 운동 (Kwangju minjuwha undong). I'm assuming that English-language sources use both "Uprising" and "Democracy Movement" because "uprising" doesn't have the negative connotation of 반란 pallan/ballan (rebellion) or 내란 naeran (civil unrest), which is what the movement was referred to before the official re-evaluation and re-naming. (Then again, from a Western outsider's perspective, would "rebellion" and "civil unrest" have the same negative connotation that they would from a perspective internal to the Korean context?)
Thanks for any enlightenment on this issue. 
Deberniere Torrey.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20111115/b1996339/attachment.html>