[KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980

[Frank Hoffmann]

Excuse me. But I find that particular explanation 
(below) close to the edge of being disrespectful; 
this is by no means a "plain and simple" issue. 
It very well does make a difference what wording 
we choose, and--as was well explained here--one 
can argue for various terms and use various terms 
(even 'rebellion,' *if* explained and possibly 
redefined). But in choosing a term you sure do 
make an interpretative historical, political and 
thereby also moral statement about the historical 
event, the people involved on all sides, and 
certainly also about yourself and your world 
view. Please do not brush away the reasons why 
this has been one of the central issues in 
historian's (and not just historian's) debates 
over the past decades by saying that it is a 
simple issue.


Best,
Frank



>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


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