[KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980

[Balazs Szalontai]

Well, it was not me but rather the U.S. Congress that made a distinction between elected and putschist governments when it declared that the U.S. government should not provide military aid to governments which gained power by a coup unless Congress gave the administration a special waiver. While this principle was not yet legally in force in 1980, such considerations were definitely at work as early as 1961 when the Kennedy administration briefly withheld recognition from Park Chung Hee. Had Chun been absolutely certain about the legality of his actions, he would have probably consulted the U.S. before his two coups (December 1979 and May 1980), but he preferred to create a fait accompli.



________________________________
From: don kirk <kirkdon at yahoo.com>
To: Balazs Szalontai <aoverl at yahoo.co.uk>; Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Sent: Thursday, 17 November 2011, 7:50
Subject: Re: [KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980

The question is not whether the regime is monolithic or repressive but whether it's in charge of the govt. If you think taking over by coup d'etat or revolution means a regime is not "legitimate," we could go on forever saying this or that govt is or was not "legitimate." The issue here is not a value judgement of the quality or goodness of the regime, just the simple question of who holds power. Like it or not, the Chun regime held the power -- and exercised it in suppressing the Kwangju, uh, revolt. (I realize you may not "accept" that word.)
Don Kirk --- On Wed, 11/16/11, 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: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 9:56 AM
>
>
> 
>"It's absurd to quibble about whether the govt was "legitimate" or not. Of course it was, recognized by most other nations."
> 
>This makes sense only if we accept the principle followed by Thai putschist generals, according to which if your coup succeeds, it is a sign of good karma and hence you're the legitimate authority, no matter how and why you overthrew the previous government. International recognition may be, and frequently is, an indicator of legitimacy, but the question of who will recognize whom is so much influenced by diplomatic calculations and interests that it is not irrefutable evidence. See, for instance, the recognition or non-recognition of the PRC in the 1950s and 1960s. In the absence of any other rival government, based either at home or abroad, Chun did have a monopoly of power, but if one's ability to eliminate opposition is an indicator of legitimacy, then the more repressive and monolithic a regime is, the more legitimate it will become.:)
> 
>Balazs Szalontai 
>
>________________________________
>From: don kirk <kirkdon at yahoo.com>
>To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
>Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011, 18:53
>Subject: Re: [KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980
>
>Actually, the govt was dropping leaflets from helicopters urging the rebels to cease their protest -- this a few days before the final bloody ending. (I picked up a few.) The leaflets were signed by Pres Choi -- that is, his name was at the bottom. It's absurd to quibble about whether the govt was "legitimate" or not. Of course it was, recognized by most other nations. Who are a bunch of academics to question an historical fact? That discussion is really a distraction. As for insisting on naming it the "Kwangju resistance," that's equally misleading. Certainly the revolt was an act of "resistance," but so are any number of non-violent protests that go on every day in Seoul. So were the anti-U.S.-beef demos of upwards of three years ago or the demos after the deaths of 2 schoolgirls, run over by a U.S. armored vehicle, nine years ago. (Yes, I was at those protests too.)
>So "resistance" vastly understates all that happened at Kwangjju, downplays the student role and is another academic obfuscation. Repeat: the Kwangju revolt was the Kwangju revolt, plain and simple. Let scholars go on haggling over who did what to whom, why, who were the heroes, the villains and all that. But a revolt is a revolt is a revolt.
>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, 12:28 PM
>>
>>
>>When the Kwangju massacre began, Chun had not yet named himself the president of the ROK. Choi Kyuha was still the president.  Moreover, May 18, 1980, marks not only the beginning of ten bloody days in Kwangju, it also follows by one day Chun's illegal dismissal of the ROK National Assembly and his extension of martial law to the entire country. In other words, it was part of a coup still in progress. Chun may have been the leading authority in government on May 18, 1980, but he was not the legitimate authority. The people in Kwangju were protesting in favor of a legitimate government, not against one.  Don Baker  
>>Professor
>>Department of Asian Studies 
>>University of British Columbia 
>>Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z2 
>>don.baker at ubc.ca
>>
>>________________________________
>>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 05:05:05 -0800 From: kirkdon at yahoo.com To: aoverl at yahoo.co.uk; koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws Subject: Re: [KS] Naming Kwangju, May 1980 
>>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/20111117/8dadb9c9/attachment.html>