Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea- The Origin of Lack .docx

Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea
- The Origin of Lack of Opposition to Multiculturalism
저자
(Authors)
Lee, Yong Seung
출처
(Source)
OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society 5(2), 2015.1, 85-
114 (30
pages)
발행처
(Publisher)
숙명여자대학교 다문화통합연구소
Sookmyung Institute for Multicultural Studies
URL http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Article/NODE06094386
APA Style Lee, Yong Seung (2015). Discussion on
Multiculturalism in Korea. OMNES:
The Journal of Multicultural Society, 5(2), 85-114.
이용정보
(Accessed)
저작권 안내

DBpia에서 제공되는 모든 저작물의 저작권은 원저작자에게 있으며,
누리미디어는 각 저작물의 내용을 보증하거나 책임을 지지 않
습니다. 그리고 DBpia에서 제공되는 저작물은 DBpia와 구독계약을 체결한
기관소속 이용자 혹은 해당 저작물의 개별 구매자가 비
영리적으로만 이용할 수 있습니다. 그러므로 이에 위반하여 DBpia에서
제공되는 저작물을 복제, 전송 등의 방법으로 무단 이용하는
경우 관련 법령에 따라 민, 형사상의 책임을 질 수 있습니다.
Copyright Information
Copyright of all literary works provided by DBpia belongs to
the copyright holder(s)and Nurimedia does not guarantee
contents of the literary work or assume responsibility for the
same. In addition, the literary works provided by DBpia may
only
be used by the users affiliated to the institutions which executed
a subscription agreement with DBpia or the individual
purchasers of the literary work(s)for non-commercial purposes.
Therefore, any person who illegally uses the literary works
provided by DBpia by means of reproduction or transmission
shall assume civil and criminal responsibility according to
applicable laws and regulations.
University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이)
128.97.244.***
2017/05/30 00:42 (KST)
http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Publication/PLCT00002575
http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Issue/VOIS00228825
http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Publisher/IPRD00012710
OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5
No.2, pp. 85-100.
❙ Article❙

Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea:
The Origin of Lack of Opposition to Multiculturalism*
1)
Yong Seung Lee
Abstract
Multiculturalism is in the grip of a fierce dispute throughout the
world.
In contrast, Multiculturalism in Korea has not been yet faced
with the mean-
ingful and acute challenges. What could explain these
differences? The purpose
of this study is to answer to the question. This thesis suggested
three causes
of the phenomena. The first cause can be attributed to the lack
of theoretical
dispute on multiculturalism in Korea. Second, state paternalism
that originated
from Confucian traditions can be presented to the origin of
‘Korean way of
multiculturalism.’ Third, current situation of multiculturalism in
Korea results
from the absence of ‘politics of multiculturalism.’
❚ Key words：migration, Korean multiculturalism, multicultural
policy,
state paternalism, normativity, assimilation
Introduction
Dispute over multiculturalism
Globalization has been advancing since the Second World War

in
view of velocity, quantity, and quality, more than ever, at an
incomparable
degree. We are now observing free movement of products,
technology,
capital, services, and population on the basis of development of
trans-
portation, communication, and information technology. Even
human mi-
gration, which is under the relatively strict regulations,
increases more
* This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grant
funded by the Korea government (MEST) (NRF-2010-413-
B00023).
University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP:
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
86 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5
No.2
and more swiftly as if to laugh at the efforts of nations.
Population move-
ment changes demographic landscape in the receiving countries
and aug-

ments the frequency of contact with different cultures as well.
Critical
for a state to maintain its solid integration is establishing the
relationship
between mainstream and new cultures that flowed, only as long
as the
nation-states would like to maintain their integration rigidly.1)
In the past, a state, which had confronted racial, national, and
cultural
diversity, had implemented assimilation policies in the name of
social
cohesion. Assimilation connotes a tacit hierarchy in races and
cultures,
and keeps pace with exclusion, suppression, and compelling
non-visibli-
zation over minority cultures and the groups which incarnate
certain
cultures. Assimilation policy seems in modern society, however,
to reach
the limit in serving as a social integration measures.2) Despite
the assump-
tion of ‘assimilation’, minority cultures have not been
annihilated.
Instead, they survived and emerged whenever possible. in

addition, assim-
ilation policy, keeping pace with exclusion and suppression,
hardly, now,
lasts any longer with a voice of the minority has just begun to
come
about. It is worthwhile to point out that this change has run
parallel
with extension of democracy which may be interpreted as “the
reduction
process of the excluded.” Multiculturalism is an ideology and
practice
which has been emerging at the end of the supposed utility of
assimilation
policies. Although multiculturalism faces various challenges
and some
alternative paradigms are being sought,3) they still keep their
position
as a key in resolving problems of social integration in many
countries.
However, at the advent of this century, repulsion against multi-
culturalism has also been significantly spreading out its
influence. Daily
Mail, the British daily newspaper, reported as the title,
“Multiculturalism

is dead,” which resembled as advertisement in July 7th, 2006,
exactly
one year after the London bombings (7/7). The title, more or
less sugges-
tive, manifested some aspects about current multiculturalism.
The article,
citing certain research, suggested that British society should
encourage
mix based on the new ‘Britishness,’ rather than
multiculturalism. Britain,
one of the leading countries in implementing multicultural
policies, has
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2 87
been seeing fierce disputes about multiculturalism since the
London terror
attacks in 2005. But, such ‘backlash’ can be observed in places
other
than Britain. Many countries that have adopted multicultural
policies,

whether or not they have been institutional, are going through
the same
motions of discussing the pros and cons, despites the subtle
differences
of situations (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010, pp. 2-3). That such
far right
parties or groups in Europe acquire political power is an
extreme part
of such phenomenon. Being not so serious, German Prime
Minister
Angela Merkel declared on Oct 2010 that attempts to build a
multicultural
society “have utterly failed,” while British Prime Minister
David Cameron
commented that “state multiculturalism has had disastrous
results”
(Battistella, 2011, p. 16).
A more extreme response to multiculturalism was the tragic act
of
terror committed by a young Norwegian man, armed with a far
right
mentality, islamophobia, and religious vocation, had identified
himself
as a “Christian fundamentalist.” His act of terror was to

dramatically
express repulsion against multiculturalism and a specific
religion, and
he specified Korea and Japan as economically successful model
in spite
of their refusal of multiculturalism and their restriction of
migration.
Korea, which is actively seeking multiculturalism policies at
this time,
may be regretful about his eulogy.
Just as was mentioned, some accept multiculturalism as an
influential
way and an ideology for social integration, whereas some refuse
and
fiercely criticize it. Korean society, different from the global
trends, has
not yet experienced considerable disputes over multiculturalism,
theoret-
ically or philosophically. Besides, there is no evidence for
widely spread
repulsion against multiculturalism in Korean society.4) Taking
into con-
sideration the global trend and Korean peculiarity, the point of
this paper

is to critically review Korean multiculturalism and search for
the causes
which produce Korean Multiculturalism. Section two describes
multi-
culturalism, which I consider to be for a critical evaluation of
multi-
culturalism in Korea.
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2
What for multiculturalism?
In the midst of the pros and cons of multiculturalism, no unitary
definition of multiculturalism has been settled on, which is, in
part, a
characteristic of any ‘-ism,’ itself. There are just as many multi-
culturalism‘s’ as the number of countries that practice
multiculturalism
or as the population of people who advocate or criticize it. But,
a few
factors can be extracted across its diversity (Vertovec &

Wessendorf,
2010, p. 3). Multiculturalism provides public ‘recognition’
concentrated
on support for the organizations, the activities, and the
institutions of
ethnic minorities. Multiculturalism is sensitive to the value of a
certain
ethnic and religious groups and also takes into account gender-
specific
customs in education. Furthermore, it acknowledges curriculum
develop-
ment, mother tongue education, and the establishment of
minority schools
aimed at the formation of identity of a minority and cognitive
competence
improvement of a host society’s students over their colleagues.
Multiculturalism also can contain such as institutions like this,
the re-
structuring of the system and customs and retraining personnel
in public
institutions, medical institutions, social service institutions,
police forces,
courts, etc. for more culture-sensitive works; public services
given in

multiple languages, and legal exceptions for the minorities (For
example
turbans permitted to the Sikhs instead of helmets); protection
from dis-
crimination, provision of religious conveniences, formulations
of public
schemes for prohibited foods; permission of media for minority
and
media coverage monitoring to avoid stereotype generation, and
so forth.
Such institutions can also be included like affirmative action
and legal
stipulations for multiculturalism and non-discrimination; and,
although
rather different from Korean contexts, multiculturalism may
include his-
torical reconciliation with indigenous peoples and an
acknowledgement
of their territorial rights.5)
Despite differences among the types, countries implementing
multi-
culturalism policies don’t confine cultural customs within
private regions,

but permit them to be presented in public spheres. The state
serves as
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2 89
an arbitrator in this process or devolves a certain part of their
power,
just as Canada does. In addition, multiculturalism adheres to a
perspective
of ‘incommensurability,’ with regard to culture. Unlike cultural
relativ-
ism, while multiculturalism refuses the idea of the superiority
of a culture
over another, it advocates the universal values of mankind. In
this way,
it asserts that multiculturalism should be achieved within
cultural groups
and that the members of minority groups should have a voice
which
enables them to raise objection to their own culture and then a
“right
to exit” (Okin, 2002). Multiculturalism is to admit self-

expression, ex-
plicit statements, and self-respect of a unit culture; and, based
on this
assumption, it takes the modification and the transformation of
a culture
through fusion and interaction for granted. Multiculturalism
may be con-
sidered as eventually aiming at the establishment of
multicultural identity
by mutual understanding, respect, dialogue, and communication
among
equivalent cultures, assuming the diversity in them but
penetrating the
cultures as a whole (Y-S. Lee, 2010, p. 43).
So, what should such multiculturalism be advocated for? Logic
to
justify multiculturalism is as follows (Y-S. Lee 2010, pp. 44-
45): First,
multiculturalism is based on affirmation of the inevitability of
‘multi-cul-
tural conditions’ in human societies. In this regard,
multiculturalism rec-
ognizes the differences and advocates the preservation and the
develop-

ment of the cultures of the minority communities. Second,
multi-
culturalism follows the logic of equality of differences.
Multiculturalism
pays attention to power distribution in order to maintain the
differences
and to practically realize the equality among them. Equal
treatment of
a culture of individuals and of groups keeps pace with the
extension
of democracy. Third, multiculturalism promotes social
integration by rec-
ognizing cultural differences and rights, encouraging the
coexistence and
mutually constructive interchange among them. Such logic is
the limit
that multiculturalism imposes on itself and also serves as the
basis of
reflection to reflect itself continuously. Fourth, in the most
comprehensive
senses, multiculturalism stands for the human rights and
intrinsic equality
of mankind. Multiculturalism addresses the question of the
values of in-

128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2
dividuals or groups that have acquired membership of a
community but
have also been sacrificed by the host society, and at the same
time, pays
attention to individuals who don’t have membership but have
been resid-
ing in the society. It is not necessary to explain that the logic to
support
it is the very perception of human equality.
Korea shifted to a labor importing country in the late 1980’s.
The
rapid increase of the marriage migrant women, in line with the
structural
collapse of the rural community, has spread apprehension that
problems
and conflicts accompanied with multiethnic society are going to
be
brought to the surface. Confronting such change in reality, the

Korean
government has established and implemented a variety of
migrant in-
tegration measures since the mid-2000s under the pretext of
multi-
culturalism policies (Kwon et al., 2012, p. 223). Prior to the
soaring
number of marriage migrants via international marriage, the
foreign pop-
ulation policies of the Korean government concentrated mainly
on
‘controlling and managerial strategy’ in accordance with the
domestic
demands of the economy without any special policies that can
be true
to the name of immigration policies. The increase in female
marriage
migrants, however, is different from the case of migrant
workers, and
has eventually brought forth a reflective awareness about the
fundamental
characteristic of Korean society (K-G. Han & G-S. Han, 2007,
p. 73).
An existing angle which regarded migrants as temporary

residents, who
would depart Korea after supplementing its labor deficiency or
simply
as a object of control, was mitigated and a consensus was
formed to
acknowledge them as subjects to go with the future along with
us―the
existing Korean citizens.
It may be true that the Korean government has commenced with
multiculturalism policy implementation since 2006 at the time
the central
government announced “the transition to a multicultural,
multinational
society” and presented the policy paper “Social Integration
Support
Measure for Marriage Migrant Families” on Apr. 26th, 2006.
The main
contents of the paper was as follows: The establishment of the
gov-
ernmental office which is responsible to support migrants
including mar-
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

No.2 91
riage immigrants, the appointment of the multicultural family
support
centers, the legislative push for an administration of brokerage
business
for international marriages, the revision of unearthed
representation of
racial discrimination in textbooks, the influence of essential
multicultural
elements in these same textbooks, and the push for the Anti-
discrim-
ination Law (a tentative name), etc. These became the backbone
of the
currently multicultural policies of Korea.
On May 26, 2006, at the 1st Council on Policy for Foreign
Population, under the supervision of the President, the council
deliberated
and set up “Basic policy for foreign population and implemental
system,”
which was the first policy aimed at helping the foreign
population in
Korea (Prime Ministerial Committee on Policy for Foreigners,

2006).
The report came the Korean title “외국인 정책 ” (Oikukin
Jeongchaeck),
which literally means ‘policy for foreigners,’ however, in
English it is
simply translated as “Immigration Policy” by committee. This
means that
the Korean government has the first formal immigration policy
in the
name of “외국인 정책.” Formerly, the Korean government had no
concrete
established policy for the foreign population. There can be no
stipulated
immigration policy because the government simply operated
policy for
foreigners in a passive way to deal with rotating foreign
workers.
However, as the number of immigrants through international
marriages
increased, a novel policy was inevitable. Therefore, adoption of
the policy
can be significantly meaningful in that it might not only be a
para-
digm-shift in terms of the policy for the foreign population, but

also
can be an introduction of the first immigration policy in Korea
(Kwon
et al., 2012, pp. 228-9).
After that, “The Basic Act for Foreign Residents” and “The
Multicultural Family Support Act” (hereinafter MFSA) was
passed in
2007 and 2008, respectively, in order to establish a legal
foundation for
multiculturalism policies. The central government announced an
action
plan every year on the basis of “The Basic Plan for Foreign
population”
and “The Basic Plan for Multicultural Families,” all of which
are to be
formulated every five years pursuant to pertinent legislation.6)
The
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2
Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MOPAS

hereinafter) ad-
vised in July 2011 that the provincial and the municipal
government shall
set up a foreign resident-designated department, in phases, by
2013.7)
Problems of multiculturalism in Korea
Multiculturalism as a norm
The first side to be mentioned is the absence of a social
consensus
to the multiculturalism in Korea. It seems that multiculturalism
in Korea
is regarded as a norm. The term of ‘norm,’ as written in the
subtitle,
assumes the ‘fact’ that multiculturalism has already acquired a
social
consensus, which invites more detailed explanation. The
normativity that
Korean multiculturalism has acquired comes from ‘Korean style
multi-
culturalism policy’ which is nearly similar to assimilation
policy. In other
words, because the multiculturalism in Korea is based on the
premise

that the minority should be absorbed into the mainstream
culture in princi-
ple, there is almost no room for criticism from the natives. If
there were
a sort of social consensus about multiculturalism in Korea, that
would
be a consensus on the pseudo multiculturalism or ‘in fact’
assimilation
policy.
The insistence that multiculturalism in Korea has acquired the
posi-
tion of a quasi-norm can be confirmed by the following issues:
First,
while similar types of ideological conflicts of the Cold War has
been
continuing in Korea, in 2008, there was the unanimous passing
of a multi-
culturalism related law. Second, in the 2012 General Election,
the con-
servative party (Saenuri party) nominated an immigrant as
proportional
representative, and she became the first migrant Member of
Parliament.
And finally, Multiculturalism is being dealt with in a favorable

manner
by even the conservative media.
Because Korea had experienced a civil war due to the
ideological
conflicts 5 years after the end of the Second World War, and is
still
divided into North and South Korea, the conflicts in accordance
with
the ideology remain unchanged. After the Cold War had ended,
while
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2 93
there was not the catastrophic level of ideological conflicts that
can cause
another war, the global tendency of post-ideology is very far
away from
the reality of Korea. This kind of ideological feud influences
party politics
or the gap between the political parties, which is one of the
main causes

of contestation between the political parties. However, the
National
Assembly of Korea unanimously passed the bill which was
related to
the support for immigrants. The issues about immigration, as
well-known,
have produced a sharp crack in many western countries, and far-
right
parties that are committed to the anti-immigration frequently
enter into
parliament in several countries. By contrast, even the
conservative party
which is located to the right unanimously agreed about the bill
in Korea.
Even at that time, a majority party of parliament was liberal
party which
had just lost the presidential election the previous year.
During the 2012 General Election, the Korean voters came face
to
face with a very ironic situation. The Saenuri party (former
Grand
National Party) that stood for conservatism put up a native
Filipino female
as a candidate of proportional representative for parliament and

had her
elected. It was very difficult event that an immigrant could be
brought
into the National Assembly in racially and ethnically
homogeneous soci-
ety for a long time. The fact that an exception like this occurred
by
the conservative political party can be called an intense irony.
Before
than this event, there was also a first in a 2010 local election.
The same
conservative party nominated a native Mongolian woman for the
most
tightly populated Gyeongi Provincial Assembly and made her
the first
Member of Parliament of the province (in Korean, a ‘Do’/도).
These
nominations were just done in the name of multiculturalism
policy.
Multiculturalism in Korea has been in the position of quasi-
norm to the
extent that the conservative party exercised initiatives in
multicultural
policies.

The normativity of Korean multiculturalism can also be found
in
that the conservative media – in Europe’s spectrum of ideology,
they
are very similar to the ‘far right’– consider multiculturalism
with a very
favorable view, needless to say the liberal media. While the
conservative
128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2
media promotes and aggravates the anti-foreigner sentiment for
crimes
by foreigners with racist demeanor, they nevertheless maintain a
very
positive attitude toward multiculturalism.
As can be seen through these examples, Korean
multiculturalism
seems to have acquired a normal position without meaningful
public
contestations. Now, multiculturalism that was introduced lacked
profound

considering on the future of Korean society and lacked a social
consensus,
but has ironically taken a position of an ideology which most
people
agree with. However, the normativity Korean multiculturalism
obtained
is not on a rigid foundation. Such instability has a vulnerability
that may
become damaged even by mere chance. It is the normativity that
can
be reversed at any time.
Policy without a theoretical foundation is also easily
changeable.
Policies responding extemporaneously to practical current needs
without
holistic planning over multicultural society can hardly maintain
consistency. Dissipation of national energy and its inefficiency
is a natural
outcome in the implementation of such policies, lacking a
philosophical
and theoretical guide. One cannot assert that theoretical
discussion must
be ahead of practice. If so, social issues requiring urgent
treatment may

be thrown away and the theory can possibly turn around
aimlessly. Even
Canada, which adopted multiculturalism as the state identity for
the first
time in the world, put priority on policy prior to concentration
on theoret-
ical contemplation. However, circumstantial practice in
accordance with
change in reality without a proper backing philosophy,
theoretical debate,
and related social consensus may not guarantee the consistency,
sustain-
ability, and efficiency of the policy. Both should go side by side
like
two sides of the same coin. In this regard, the Korean situation
in which
the one side overwhelms the other is not desirable.
In conclusion, Korean multiculturalism and policies pertaining
to it
may be evaluated to stand on an unstable normativity or
‘Sollen,’ having
a theoretical and philosophical discernment of ‘why’ omitted.

128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)
No.2 95
Limitation of the intended beneficiaries of multiculturalism
policies
A group or individuals that may be called a multicultural
subjects
accounts for the minority, including migrant workers (the
undocumented
included), indigenous people, immigrants, the national minority,
the eth-
nic minority, the mixed blood, and the social minority,
including females,
homosexuals, the handicapped minority, and so forth. The
peculiarity of
Korean society may contain defectors from North Korea and
overseas
Koreans residing in the Korean territory. Korean
multiculturalism poli-
cies, however, concentrate only on marriage migrants; inter alia,
and mar-
riage migrant women and their children. Intermittent supports
for mi-

grants, such as special measures for the children of
undocumented work-
ers, have been introduced, but they have only been in
exceptional cases.
The aim of the MFSA is to basically support those who became
or might become Korean nationals in the future. According to
Article
2 of MFSA, the subjects to the law are restricted to the families
who
are composed of Korean nationals, including the nationals by
natural-
ization or affiliation, and marriage migrants. Accordingly, legal
beneficia-
ries that can be included in the category of multicultural
families are
shrunk significantly (Kwon et al., 2012, pp. 233-4). MFSA
excludes the
migrant workers who account for the highest number in Korea.
A further serious problem accounts for an approach of the
policy
that treats even the narrowly defined subjects to the policy from
a view-
point of a solution seeking for the future problems or causes of

conflicts.
This inclination is based on concern about family
disorganization, social
conflict caused by the first and second generations of
immigrants and
consequential obstacles of integration into Korean society that
may occur
in case of failure …
Memo
To: The Board of Directors
From: Financial Analyst
Date: April 24, 2020
Re: Investment Recommendation for Essential Utilities Inc.
According to pro forma analysis of Maricopa and San Francisco.
I recommend we can acquiring public water systems in San
Francisco.
The Changes in Poverty Rate and Yearly Inflation rate does not
affect the result of acquisition Cost and NPV. They are the
same. We can ignore the changes.
For Maintenance costs percentage, with the increase in the
percentage, we can find the acquisition cost and NPV both
decrease in Maricopa and San Francisco. And when the rate for
Maricopa and San Francisco is 20% and 25%, their acquisition
cost is about 1.8 billion. However, San Francisco's NPV is
310,868,945 which is 1.3 times of Maricopa.
The same thing happened in the change of Water rate, with the
increase in the percentage, the acquisition cost, and NPV both

increase in Maricopa and San Francisco. Also, when the rate for
Maricopa and San Francisco is -10% and 10%, their acquisition
cost is about 2.5 billion. San Francisco's NPV is 437,577,258
which is 1.3 times of Maricopa.
The last part is the average change of water assumption, the
acquisition cost and NPV both increase in Maricopa and San
Francisco with the rate increase. But when the rate above 10
percent, the acquisition cost in San Francisco begins to lower
than in the Maricopa accompany the higher NPV
Combined with the above analysis, I set a different rate to make
acquisition cost is almost the same. The NPV of San Francisco
exceeds the Maricopa by 110 million.
Maricopa
San Francisco
Average change in water consumption
5%
10%
Change in Water Rates
10%
10%
Change in Poverty Rate
10%
10%
Maintenance costs as % of revenue
10%
10%
Yearly Inflation rate
2.5%
2.5%
Acquisition cost
$2,939,164,849
$2,900,307,571

NPV
($382,091,430)
($493,052,287)
03/31 (Pre-1876)
A. 8-10 pm on Tuesday evenings for office hours
B. Lecture start
a. “Opening” of “Hermit Kingdom”
i. Began early 15th century
ii. Rise of the Ming?
1. Came before Qing
iii. Korea’s place
1. Geographically, culturally, and historically
iv. Relations between China and Korea
1. Father and son relation
a. Or older and younger brother
2. Not a legal tributary system, it was more of a moral one
v. Korean is fully autonomous, free to maintain relations with
any countries
1. As long as Korea abided by the tributary system
b. Tributary system between China and Korea
i. China did not interfere with Korea
ii. Exchanges of envoys between China and Korea
1. Symbolic and ceremonial
iii. Trade was not important; it was incidental
iv. Investiture- the ultimate symbol of legitimacy?
1. China provides legitimacy to Korean kingdom
2. Close ties with China
a. Korea sent more envoys to China (5 times a year) compared
to China (2 times a year)
3. There’s a friggin gate between China and Korea where they
meet?
c. Pak Che-ga (1750-1815)
i. Was a person
1. Representative of a Korean intellectual during this time
period

2. Maintained friendships with over 100 Chinese intellectuals
3. Advocated social and economic reforms along the lines of
Qing China at the time
a. Maintained that Korea should remain loyal to MING China
4. Pak was opposed by pro-Confucian Koreans
5. Korea at this time, Joson Korea
6. Travelogues of Korean envoys in Qing China
d. Korean Exclusionism (Korea saw isolation as necessary)
i. The location of it most of all (right next to China and Japan)
ii. Ambivalence toward Qing China
1. Qing was not Han and the Han saw the Manchu as barbarians.
iii. Survival of Ming loyalism
iv. Distrust of Japan
1. Japan tried to “open up” Korea and Korea was not having it
v. Domestic unrest & spread Christianity
1.
vi. A weak monarchy and strong aristocracy (yangban?)
1. The monarchy was weak in the sense that they had to
maintain a balance of exercising their power as well as the
relationship with the aristocracy. Power was based in support
from the aristocracy
vii. Rule of the consort clans
1. Ruled by the relative of the Queen’s families
a. In-law families from 1800s onward.
i. Andong Kim
ii. P’ungyang Cho family
iii. Andong Kim family
iv. Queen Min
viii. Changes in yangban status system
1. Increase of “fallen” yangban
a.
2. Increase of “ruined” yangban (chanban)
a. Everyday lives are no different from peasants or commoners
b. Yangban in name only
3. Breaking down of distinctions between legitimate and
illegitimate lines of descent

a. Usually the first son takes the test to work in the government/
Confucian scholarship
b. Way more illegitimate sons than legitimate sons
4. Improved lot of chungin
a. Rise of the middle class (not contemporary sense)
i. Between aristocrats and commoners
ii. Doctors, lawyers, painters of the time
iii. Recruited to accompany the envoys to Qing China
1. Exposed to Qing Chinese culture and technology
5. Growing strength of provincial gentry
ix. Social problems
1. Social discontent
a. Lots of uprising from peasants
b. Local corruption added to these problems
c. Rigidity of social status system (Chungin were still
considered lower than yangban despite being exposed to Qin
China more than the yangban?)
d. Catholicism was popular with chungin, commoners, and
women despite persecutions
i. To try and escape the stratification of society at the time
x. Tonghak (started as an indigenous religion and became a
social movement)
1. Eastern learning in contest with the incoming Westerning
learning
2. Appealed to peasants, secondary sons, and fallen yangban
3. Blend of Neo-Confucianism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taosim,
and shamanism
a. Eclectic (various elements from traditional religions)
4. Korean alternative to Catholicism Became a social movement
calling for better living conditions and reforms of corrupt
government
5. Founded by Ch’oe Che-u in 1860
a. Son of a remarried widow
b. Unity of human with God
c. Humankind and Supreme Being as one and same
d. Man’s spirit is the same as God

e. Serving your fellow man constitutes serving God
f. Mysticism
xi. Decline of the royal family
1. Queen Min came up twice
a. Wife of Gojon
2. King Gojong
a. Fuck what’s his name
b. Taewon’gun was his father
xii. Knock knock, open up
1. A bunch of countries tried to open up Korea to trade
2. Taewon’gun was adamantly against opening up for the safety
of Korea
a. His policies
i. No opening up to the outside and tried to strengthen the
power of the monarchy
ii. Household tax on everyone
iii. Alienated the yangban
iv. “Uphold orthodoxy (Korean values), reject heterodoxy
(everyone else)”
1. Yi Hango- westerners were considered sub-human
3. Shit was not going well for the countries that opened up to
foreign influence so OBVIOUSLY Taewon’gun did not want to
open up Korea
a. Catholicism was also a threat
i. Leaders were originally tolerant but realized that they must
squash opposition
4. Foreigners trying to come through Korea
a. General Sherman
i. GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY
1. Open and trade with the US.
a. Korea was like nah, and set the ship on fire
b. Caused the 1871 US military expedition to Korea
b. French disturbance
i. Kwanghwa Island is where foreigners went to try and get
Korea to open up
5. Treaty of Kanghwa (Feb. 22, 1876)

a. Between Japan and Korea
b. Modeled after western unequal treaties
i. Extraterritoriality for Japanese in Korea
c. Korea is independent and enjoys the same sovereign rights as
Japan(?)4/2 (Korean response to foreign encroachment)
(Class announcements)
· Films are available
· So we watch movies and then react to them?
· Reaction papers
· 500 word paper
· Make comments in the context of readings and the lecture
· Breakout rooms for discussion
· Song of Ariran (GOTTA READ IT)
· Corresponding movie is Assassination
· Colonial period of Korea
· Kim San (Chang Chi-rak)
· Dude got fucking murdered by the Chinese Communist Party
despite being a part of the CCP
Powerpoint starts
A special Korean military corps was formed in 1881, trained by
Japanese Horimoto Reijo
· Utilizing western technology as well
Korean modernization was fueled by the modernized countries
(China, Japan, Russia) trying to control Korea.
· Actually tried to modernize in the face of foreign
encroachment by the powers that be as well as the commoners
Chrisianity’s Rise
· Institutions of modernization- schools, hospitals
· Empowered women, enabled them to get educated
· Became doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses
· They actually get to do things now

Korean modernization
· China and Japan coming in
· Modernization was seen as necessary as a defense mechanism
· Genuine innovation and a complete break with Confuncian
past
· Self-strengthening movement
· Tried to move away from China’s influence
· Martina Deuchler: top-down approach of the “Confucian
gentleman”
Imperialism
· China and Japanese bullshit with each other affected Korea as
well
· Soldiers’ Riot of 1882 targeted Japanese troops, but Chinese
intervened; Taewongun seized and taken to China
Chinese interference
· Recommending special advisors for foreign affairs and
increasing the possibility of opening trade with Korea
Korean reformers
· “Eastern ways, Western machines”
· Some saw Japan as the model to follow for modernization
Kapsin Coup (1884)
· The 14-point list of demands (started by intellectuals)
· It failed
· China came in and stopped that shit
· Commoners were not informed of what was going on
· Because the coup failed, reform activities were seen as
extensions of these failures
· Following the Japanese model of modernization was seen as
no good.
Tonghak uprising (Eastern learning) (1892 began 1894 full
force)
· Peasant uprising

· Began as a nativist, religious movement
· The government was corrupt and there was heavy taxation on
the peasants so of course the commoners were pissed.
· Mass nationalism
· It was a political, anti-foreign, and conservative movement
· This uprising was the beginning for mass nationalism
movements in Korea
· Was progressive with demands as well as conservative ideas
· More rights for people but maintain the monarchy of Choson
Korea
· Corruption was the problem, not the form of government
· Because it was a peasant uprising, the government invited
Japan to help deal with this?
· Chinese sent forces and Japanese sent forces as a response
· Beginning of Sino-Japanese War of 1894
· Major battles were fought on Korea
· According to the book (page 119) Kojong sought the aid of Li
Hung-chang, of China, and China alerted Japan of this as per
the rules of the “convention” (I don’t know which convention
· After the rebellion was quelled, Kojong asked the foreign
troops to be removed and while China proposed a mutual draw,
Japan was having none of it and the Sino-Japanese War
happened because of the shit that proceeded to happen
19th century China-Korea relations
· Informal Empire- overt foreign rule is avoided while economic
advantages are secured by unequal legal & institutional
arrangements & also by the constant threat of political
meddling, and military coercion that would be intolerable in
relations to fully sovereign states
· Nothing China and Japan did to Korea was against
international law and treaties
· Not very cashmoney of them
· 1885-94 Decade of Chinese Dominance
· Declared Korea was autonomous
· Similarly, with Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895)

China lost its claim over Korea
· Was a huge blow to Qing China
· Korea was dependent on other countries but simultaneously
declared as “autonomous”
Kabo reforms (1894-1896)
· Tried to establish Korea’s national independence
· Use of Hangul (modern language)
· Hangul was not the official language
· Vulgar script [onmun] (used by women and commoners)
becomes the official script
· Chinese was the written language at the time?
· Reform but not led by Japan
· Establish constitutional monarchy
· Undertake social and educational reforms
· 660 Reform documents
· Terminate bondage to China
· END MONOPOLY OF PUBLIC OFFICES BY YANGBAN
(this was important)
· Discontinue the exam system that kept the yangban in place
Indepence Club (1896)
· Philip Jaisohn and Yun Chiho
· Headed by pro-West, pro-Japan reformers and eventually more
Seoul citizens
· Criticized government policies
· Women’s association
· Published “The Independent”
· In Hangul (vernacular Korean)
· Spaces in the text to make it easier to read
· English version was published 3 times a week
So Chaepil (Philip Jaishon) (1866-1951)
· Involved with the Independent newspaper
· Fled to Japan in 1884
· Translation of his name captures the sentiment towards

modernity in Korea at the time
· Modernization could not be avoided and the need to
accommodate Euro-centric laws and modernity
Another method of Korean modernization and independence
(1897)
· Declares itself as the Great Han Empire
· Infrastructural changes
· Streetcars
· Ports opening
· New material culture being developed and introduced
· Railroads
· Electric lamps in one of the palaces in Korea
· Growing Japanese interest in Korea
· Lots of wars, treaties, and alliances
· Taft-Katsura Agreement (1905)
· US and Japan agree that US remains silent of Japanese
takeover of Korea, Japanese would remain silent on US takeover
of the Philippines
· Secret treaties
· China acknowledged in exchange for Japan’s interest in Korea
Russo-Japanese War (1905-05)
· Korea remained neutral but they fought on Korea soil
· Despite this, with the Treaty of Portsmouth (end of Russo-
Japanese war) that Japan had supremacy over Korea. No more
involvement with Russia and China.
Organization efforts to resist Japanese takeover
· Concern of an ultimate goal of Japanese interest in Korea
· Various efforts made to strengthen Korea
· Newspapers to distribute information
· Modern education to educate Koreans
· Clandestine activities (armed movements to promote
independence)
· Protectorate Treaty (1905)
· Japan takes over Korea’s foreign affairs

· Mr. Sunshine on Netflix is about this whole affair
4/7 (Colonial Period of Korea)
Song of Ariran
· Captures the nationalist movement, through the perspective of
Kim San (Chang Chi-Rak) during the Colonial period in Korea
· Japanese colonialism?
· COMMUNISM not allowed to be canonized in the nationalist
movement
· In the 80s they were allowed in the records as having fought
for Korean nationalism
March First Movement 1919
· Seen as the true beginning of the massive national movement
(outside of the Tonghak)
· Instigated by the call of U.S. president Woodrow Wilson
· Call for “self-determination” of colonized country
· Funeral service of Kojong
· Close to 2 million Koreans participated in the call for Korean
independence
· Lasted for two months
· Non-violent MASS demonstration for independence
· First movement since colonization in 1910 that Koreans came
out in massive demonstration
· 2 million of the 18 million population of Korea
· Aftermath:
· Not able to gain independence
· Not able to gain support from the international community,
like the US, DESPITE Woodrow Wilson’s call for “self-
determination”
· Participants in the movement had to leave Korea
· Shanghai Provisional Government (SPG): April 1919
· Within the provisional government
· Diplomatic activity in Europe and US
· Direct military action against Japan
· “Gradualist policy” of training Koreans at home and abroad
for independent statehood

Cultural Policy of Japanese government
· Japanese government suppressed the uprising of Koreans
· Had to respond to their response of this uprising on an
international scale
· Thus concessions were made
· Korean newspapers: okay
· Korean language journals: ok
· New, tighter security measures; police doubled, modern
equipment purchased, police communications and
transportation improved; preventative securities practices
instituted.
· Two Korean newspapers founded during this time
Post 1919 Nationalist Movements
· Some freedoms conceded and Koreans used this space to
express themselves
· BUT, there are other, insidious ways to control the Koreans
during this time
· Like more popo and TIGHTER security measures
· Cracks start forming in the national movement
· Arrest of prominent leaders
· The leaders were disappointed by the actions of the
international community
Koreans Abroad
· The nationalist movement happening outside of Korea
· Because Koreans were also living outside of Korea
· 2 million Koreans living in Manchuria in 1945
· 7000 Koreans in the United States
· Political refugees
· Students
· Immigrants
· Mutual Assistant Movement established in San Francisco
· Aimed for Korea to gain independence
· Koreans living outside of Korea had a tough fucking time

because they weren’t exactly privileged in their new locations
yet they were able to maintain the nationalist movement
wherever they were.
Communism in the Far East
· Popular amongst the young and educated at this time (1910s)
· They were realizing that the international community did not
give a shit about the struggles of the colonized
· Soviet Union was seen as the champion of the people as a
result
· Because they supported the liberation movement of the
colonized
· Internationalism
· Workers in any country share the principal of a global
community in the face of the colonizers
· An alternative worldview to what everyone had known up until
this point
· Leninist doctrine became very attractive for the Koreans at
this time
· Ultimately it is organization outside of Korea that was
fundamental towards the nationalist movement of Korea
· Japan was appealing because it was a different environment
(politically and intellectually) and there was a sense of freedom
(however constrained it was it was more free than being in
Korea)
· Lots of Korean international students in Japan
Emerging Korean Socialist Worldview
· Historical materialism
· Economic mode of development and change that moves history
forward and not a result of divine intervention
· CHECK THE SLIDE(S)
· Extremely attractive because Korea had a 90% working class
(actually peasants as there was no working class)
· Marxist in Asian countries focused on the peasants and trying
to rile up support from them

· Putting the focus on the success of a country on the peasants
and not the ruling class
Korean Communist Party in Korea
· Check the slide
· Aims:
· Complete overthrowing of Japanese imperialist rule and
complete independence of Korea (most important)
· 8 hour labor laws
· CHECK THE SLIDES
4/9 (Colonial Modernization)
· Director of Assassination was inspired to make the movie after
seeing a photo of Nationalist
· There were actual historical references in the movie
·
· The female protagonist was an actual person in history
·
· Korean police were hated. Seen as a symbol of Japanese power
in Korean
· Colonial modernization
· Scholars say that Korean colonization
· Starting to argue that Japanese occupation attempted to
modernize (westernize/industrialize) Korea
· Shopping centers and buildings reflect this westernization
· Yi Sang (wrote Wings)
· Was a really accomplished writer, designer, architect
· Writing style was extremely experimental
· “Stream-of-consciousness” style
· Is a modern style of writing
· Representative work of Korean modernism
· Infamous poem “Crow’s-Eye View” 1936
· Criticism of Yi Sang (became popular in the 1980s for his
fierce experimentation) was nonexistent. At least political
criticism because he died so young in Japanese prison. Was
captured as an “unruly Korean”
· Yi Wang Su (captured by North Koreans and died during this

capture)
· Mr. Controversial/Father of modern Korean literature and first
modern Korean novel
· Wrote the Declaration of Independence (of Korea) in Japan in
1919
· Studies in Japan, exiled to Russia and China, returns to Japan,
and then works for the Provisional Government and works for
the paper
· One of the first notable Koreans to change his name to
Japanese
· His life was parallel with colonial history: Japan was
prominent in socioeconomic history but absent in intellectual
and cultural history.
· Because Yi Kwang-su represented Korean intellectualism and
people wanted to maintain the image that Korea maintained
their cultural identity during colonization
· His book Mujong was an immense sensation
· 10,000 copies sold in 1920s Korea
· Ann Lee’s breakdown of this novel
· Clear language; very casual as if speaking to someone
· Discarded conventional plot line and focused on interaction
· Free love, sexual equality, modern marriage were ideas
introduced to the many young readers
· Represented the young readers in 1917
· HOWEVER in 1922 he was now seen as a COLLABORATOR
· Reconstruction should replace reform or revolution as a
concept
· Reconstruct national character, economy, environment,
religion, morality
· Basically redefining Korean identity
· Educating the young on morality and spirituality is more
beneficial that the physical revolution happening in Manchuria
· Said these moral failings were the cause of the other
movements failing
· He was not alone in critiquing Confucian norms
· But he was the most extreme

· Family values and sadaejuui (“rely on the great”)
· Attention on education- movement to establish a Korean
University
· Long-term cultural and education development was necessary
to gain independence
· Separation of state and nation (nation = culture)
· Concept of the cultural root of a nation is separate from the
state
· Said “Korean could claim no part in world-cultural history”
· Korean history is heavily predicated on Chinese history and
classics
· Wanted to separate from this and create a wholly Korean
identity
· Basically, don’t engage politically, engage culturally
· Criticism of Yi Kwang-su stated that
· He was a defeatist
· If Korean society had no merit why work to transform it
· Saw this as a rejection of Korean accomplishment
· Saw it as as a justification of Japanese rule
· The nationalists deemed that Koreans needed to be mentally
and culturally ready to be a part of world history
· Many movements spawned
· Language movement (cultural)
· Production movement (economy)
· Products made by and for Koreans
· Don’t consume alcoholic products and cigarettes
· Dye their own products
· An actual cultural movement
· Failed because there was no political power within Korea. Did
not address problems seen by the Korean people
· Japan co-opted this movement and censored a lot of their
writings and prominent Korean intellectuals
· Koreans couldn’t even participate in the movement
4/14 (Women and Education)
· New Women [sin yosong] (1896 [all of them] to 1950s to 70s)
· Na Hyesok (painter, poet, activist, founder of Yojagye (World

of Women))
· From a privileged family. Father was a pastor and goes to
Japan to study
· Marries Kim U-yong, a high-ranking government official in
Manchuko
· Argues that the traditional ideal of women (as a wise mother
and a good wife) was a means to enslave women
· Died penniless in a mental institute
· Kim Wonju (feminist, founder of magazine New Women)
· Married and divorced twice
· Applicable to all divorced women, they could not see their
children if they were divorced
· Became a Buddhist monk after
· Kim Myongsun (author, novelist, poest, journalist)
· Died penniless in a mental institute
· New Women was a collective self-ideal for educated women
developed by feminist consciousness & challeneged moral
system of Confucian patriarchy
· Based on Western liberal feminism
· As a discursive construct?
· The concept was basically only discussed by intellectuals
· As a symbol of modernity
· As a way to talk about Korea as they were entering into this
point of history
· Yosong (Women)
· The word didn’t exist before 1910 and was tied to the family
unit rather than the woman as an individual
· The word highlights the identity of women outside of the
family
· How New Women (sin yosong) saw themselves in society
(outside of male intellectual discourse)
· Na Hyesok saw the ideal life of New Women as someone who
was able to pursue intellectual interests but also accomplish the
tasks expected of them as a woman
· Someone who could balance the traditional as well as the
modern

· Women as humans first rather than as subservient to the
family/husband
· Paradox of colonial education
· Education allowed women to exist outside of the home and
pursue their own desires
· 1919, the rate of education of Korean children was low <5%.
· Women are complaining about the type of education was not
enough
· Another group of women complained that women should be
focused on practical learning
· Socialist women, Ho Chongsuk, were critical of education as
being too heavily based on the bible and used as a tool of
capitalism
· Secondary education more focused on practical learning and
how to fit into society as a woman (wise mother and good wife
mentality)
· After graduating from school, there were not a lot of jobs
available that matched their level of education
· Journalists, writers, painters but you had to be pretty damn
good to make it as one of these
· Yun Chi-ho: argued that education for Korean women was
actually detrimental because it wasn’t useful for them when
they work at home
·
· Marriage for New Women
· Lots of divorces
· Confucian patriarchal system was still pervasive
· Yun Simdok
· Rejected the Confucian ideal of marriage
· Has an affair with a married man
· Resulted in a double suicide
· Highly educated women not able to meet partners that equal
their wants and desires because many of these prospective
partners are already married at a young age
· Criticism of New Women
· Were blamed for the destabilization of the Confucian norm

· High rate or divorce
· Single women pursuing married men
· Blamed for pursuing their individual happiness at the cost of
the national stability
· There WERE coalitions for these women to support each other
but unfortunately they weren’t successful
· Notes on Assassination and Song of Ariran
· The Manchurian Incident
· The generation that experienced the colonization and how
pervasive it is still in contemporary Korea
· Korea was forced to carry out modernization during
colonization and the whole situation becomes very nuanced
· The expectation was that it would happen naturally but
because it happened during colonization makes it attached to
something NOT SO GREAT
· The myth of everyone opposing Japanese colonization was not
true
· Much more nuance and it wasn’t a sweeping united front4/16
(The last ten years of the Colonial Expansion)
· “Colonial Modernization”
· Japanese colonization developed the foundation of building an
economic infrastructure
· Like railroads and electricity
· Post 1945 South Korean capitalism: was it still the colonial
period?
· The idea that Japan was behind modernization of Korea:
sprout theory
· Scholars believed Korea would have naturally modernized
anyways without Japanese intervention
· Koreans actively adopted modern institutions and technology
· Rejecting Japanese colonization was not rejecting
modernization
· Korea and Taiwan was an “agricultural colony” that produced
rice for Japan and this lead to a lot of modernization, forced or
otherwise
· Choson Ilbo May 9, 1934

· Acknowledges industrialization of Korea
· No clear idea who is doing this industrialization
· The factory and productions exist but who owns these
factories?
· The Manchurian Incident 1931
· Japanese Kwantung Army instigates a war in Manchuria and
establishes Manchukuo as a puppet state
· 1941 around this time
· Nai-sen Ittai trying to remake Koreans into Japanese
· Forcing them to change their names too (Name Order of 1939)
· Use Japanese language
· Fight for Japanese empire (Oct 1943 compulsory military
service)
· Were citizens in name only
· No rights given
· Obvious loss of Korean identity
· Military Sexual Slavery
· “Comfort women” implied that it was voluntary
· It was not
· These stations were run by military AND commercial
enterprises
· Run by civilians for profit
· Women were pretty forced into doing this
· Through coaxing and coercion
· Korean knew of the existence of sexual slavery but there was
international silence about it
· Even by Koreans (patriarchy, class, government)
· Only people that were convicted for these crimes were 13
Japanese soldiers but only because they mobilized Dutch women
in Indonesia
· In the 1948 Batavia trials
· Calls for monetary compensation to victims from Japanese
government
· Demanded an apology too
· Japan said this was dealt with in the 1965 ROK-Japan
Normalization Treaty

· Infamous because Japan gave South Korean 3 million dollars
· PM Miyazawa apologized in 1992
· Not only a problem with Japanese government not apologizing
but Korean government and people not siding with the sexual
slaves
· Pervasive Korean norms that blamed the victims instead of the
perpetrator lead to this
· Private/corporate Asia Women’s Fund established in 1995
· Was not a government policy
· Wednesday Demonstration (1000s demonstrations recorded.
Rain or shine)
· Japanese colonialism
· Late 1930s, 250,000 Japanese in Korea as bureaucrats, police,
garrison soldiers.
· Vietnam: French colonialism only had 3000 French in
governmentPost 1945
· Korea is liberated from Japan
· Cold War and Korean Peninsula
· Washington Conference (1943.3.27) between President
Roosevelt and British Foreign PM Churchill
· Trusteeship
· The administration or government of a territory by a foreign
country under the supervision of the Trusteeship Council of the
United Nations
· Cairo Conference (1943.11.27) was the first time that Korea
was brought up as a talking point of the allies
· “In due course, Korea will become free and independent”
· Yalta Conference
· Stalin, Churchill, and US
· Dealing with Korea
· North and South Korea
· Did not exist before 1945
· US realize their mistake of letting the Soviet Union expand
into Korea and wanted to counter this by defining zones
according to Soviet Union and American forces (divided August
11th 1945)

· Was decided for the expediency of dismantling Japanese
power and replacing it with the existing superpowers
(DEMOCRACY I GUESS)
· While this was happening, Korea citizens don’t really
understand what the hell was going on
· Mostly the rich and influential Koreans knew this was
happening (although they didn’t have a part)
· Landing of US Armed Forces in Inchon in September 8, 1945
· Landed in Korea and treated as an “enemy territory”
· The division of Korea took place BEFORE the Korean War in
1950 and was done without ANY Korean consideration
· South Korea was agriculturally based
· North Korea was rugged. Not suited for agriculture but had a
lot of natural resources
· September 9th 1945
· Japanese flag going down and US flag going up in front of the
building that house the Japanese Governor
· Symbolizing the change of foreign power controlling Korea
· Not really liberated
· Korea People’s Republic
· 27 point platform
· Socialist in nature and Liberal Democratic Government
· People believed these to be a natural progression of a formally
colonized nation and didn’t really base it on ideology4/21
(“Liberation” of Korea)
· Announcements (Talking about points brought up in last
lecture)
· 2015 Agreement between South Korea and Japan
· Agreement over sexual slavery
· Did not consult the women who were forced into slavery when
figuring out assistance programs
· This agreement was deemed to be inadequate and problematic
· The South Korean government did not ask for a revision but
modified the policies
· South Korean government are providing for these women in
addition to what they agreed upon in 2015

· For diplomatic reasons, South Korea did not ask Japan for a
revision of this agreement
· What happened to the Koreans that changed their names
during colonization?
· Reverted back to their original names after liberation
· Koreans that didn’t change their names were heavily
discriminated against
· Even a monk wasn’t able to get rice because he didn’t change
their name
· Whether nationalists, communists, socialist predicted the
situation with North Korea (talking about it this lecture)
· No such thing as North and South Korea
· Once they were liberated from Japanese colonialism, Korea
was divided against their wills by the superpowers (U.S. and
Soviet Union
· There’s still a division
· Korean War happened BECAUSE of this division and was a
brute-force attempt to reunify Korea
· 3 year military government run by the U.S. (US Army Military
Government in Korea)
· September 8, 1945 to August 15, 1948
· No local political personalities or groups were able to engage
politically within Korea without the consent of the U.S.
· The U.S. makeshift government was in the southern portion of
Korea (below the 38th parallel)
· Korean policies were conditioned attitudes towards Japanese
occupation
· The American liberators became the new oppressors
· American policy in Korea
· Soviet Union accepted underground movements compared to
American policy
· This was because the Soviet Union was busy dealing with the
new satellite countries in the Soviet Union
· Koreans in northern Korea pretty much did everything on their
own
· The police was REAL shitty

· As a result of the revival of colonial government structure for
the sake of expediency
· FTP: the police was seen by the Korean as the main agent of
the colonial government of Japan
· Government not dealing with the problems citizens were
experiencing
· Lack of electricity and no plan detailed by government to
restore it
· Koreans who asked for this were brushed off as pro-
communist collaborators
· Americans were concerned that the indigenous political
movements in Korea were backed by the Soviet Union
· Believed that Korea didn’t have the means to set up their own
government at the time so of course it was Soviet intervention
· Trusteeship ended up being associated with being a traitor and
communist
· Added to the ongoing dividing sentiment of the left and right
· Soviet Union believed that the 5 year trusteeship would give
Korea time to setup a government
· Joint trusteeship failed
· Separate Election in South Korea May 10, 1948
· Republic of Korea
· Syngman Rhee
· Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
· Kim Il SungThe Two Koreas
· Syngman Rhee
· Flown in by the U.S. military government to Korea
· Both leaders spend a majority of their lives outside of Korea
· Kim Il Sung
· October 1945, addressing the people of Pyongyang
· Anti-Japanese and Korean liberation
· Extremely lucky as to not get arrested during the colonization
period
· That doesn’t mean he wasn’t noticed by the Japanese
government, the reason we even have records on him is because
the Japanese government KEPT records on him

· Melded Communism with Nationalism
· Despite the rhetoric of self-reliance, benefitted from Soviet
backing
· North Korean Socialism = Soviet Union Socialism (according
to the US?)
· North Korea’s failure to deal with its history HONESTLY
· Leading to the mystification of NK
· No western friends in the West
· Compared to recently decolonized countries like Vietnam
· In China, westerners that knew about Chinese history and
culture
· None of this happened in Korea
· Soviet Union did not set up the government in NK
· They recognized people’s committees established in NK
already
· Did not mean that the North Koreans were able to act with
complete autonomy
· North Korea blended Stalinist and Maoist ideologies
· Cadres deciding everything and from the masses to the masses
(Soviet Union and China respectively)
· Less class conflicts (between landlords and tenants)
· The landlords fled to South Korea4/23 (The Korean War)
· Announcements: do the mid-quarter survey
· 2015 agreement on comfort women
· We know Japan and Korea’s point of view
· Is there an American POV?
· A lot of pressure from the US for the two countries to settle
this
· US wants the two countries to work together in the face of the
growing power of China
· It is US pressure that pushed this agreement
· The agreement does not mean that there’s a legal precedent for
them to take action
· PM Abe only said that he felt remorse over it
· SK government agreed that with this agreement, everything
would be resolved and the government would not ask Japan to

renegotiate the agreement
· There’s no SK or Japan central consensus about it but there’s
a small number of people that protest the comfort women’s
plight being brushed aside by both governments
· The Korean War
· Continuation of The Two Koreas
· There were more viable people to be chosen as leader than
Syngman Rhee
· But they were all assassinated
· Yo Unhyong (was assassinated)
· Not Communist or Socialist or Liberal Democratic and was
able to blend a lot of ideologies together
· Kim Il Sung: a guerilla fighter
· Got rid of his rivals that had Soviet and Chinese ties
· Goal was to reunite north and south Korea
· Syngman Rhee
· First president of South Korea
· Anti-communist
· For the status-quo of the privileged elites
· Participated in the Independence Club
· Imprisoned for it 1899-1904
· Was asked to be the President of Korean People’s Republic
· The group that formed soon after the liberation of Korea from
Japan
· Hard to assess him historically
· Positive appraisals
· Devoted his life to Korean independence
· Liberal democracy in SK
· Anti-communist
· Negative appraisals
· Outsized ego
· Schemer in “palace politics”
· FANATICAL anticommunist and Cold War warrior
· Prevented Korea from having a unified government
· Didn’t want to negotiate with North Korea
· Actually on the war now

· Conventional story is that South Korea was attacked,
unprovoked and a complete surprise
· BUT WAS IT?
· In the American perspective, it was the most destructive war
in the 20th century
· People hear about it but no one really knows about it
· M*A*S*H is the only mass-consumed media that was even
associated with the Korean War
· The setting was the Korean war but it was more commentary
about the Vietnam war
· Korean War did not begin in June 25, 1950 and it did not end
on July 27, 1953
· The war is not over. There’s only an armistice treaty
· No peace treaty signed
· Prior to the war
· Lots of skirmishes on the border
· Nearly 10k soldiers killed
· Syngman Rhee continued to advocate reunification by force
· Uprisings
· April 3rd Jeju Uprising
· The USMG’s decision to hold a separate election in SK
· UN approved that SK could have the election alone
· Very complicated situation. There’s more but I don’t know it
· There was a protest against this
· Jeju islanders decided to resist this but a ton of people ended
up dying
· 1 in 5 or 6 islanders died
· American involvement in killing a lot of the islanders
· Innocent citizens were split up as supporters of the
government or communist with no basis
· October 19, 1948 Yosu-Sunchon Uprising
· 6th and 14th regiment mobilized and refused to participate in
suppressing Jeju Uprising
· Executions and indiscriminate imprisoning
· US mop up operation of this civil war
· NSC-68 document

· Recommended that US use military force to “contain”
communist expansionism anywhere it seemed to be occurring,
“regardless of intrinsic strategic or economic value of the lands
in question”
· Why the US ended up paying 80% of the French War cost in
Vietnam
· France wanted to pull out but US said they had to keep on
fighting
· The Great Crescent
· Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s January 12th 1950 address
at the National Press Club
· Would not include Korea in US defense
· Was a misunderstanding?
· NK thought that the US wouldn’t get involved if they attacked
SK
· Aftermath of the War
· 3.5 million casualties
· More than half were civilians (10% of Korea’s prewar
population)
· 40,000 Americans died in action in Korea
· 100,000 wounded
· Was this a civil war?
· Was it international war?
· Bruce Cumings: this conflict was fought initially through
political means in 1945-1947
· Then it shifted into guerilla war in 1948-1950
· Then conventional war in 1950
Mid-term Examination
K180C: Cultural History of Modern Korea, Spring 2020
Please choose two of the following three questions. The length
of each essay should be about 1,500 words each. The deadline
for the examination is noon, Tuesday, April 27.
Upload your essays to the turnitin by April 27, noon. Make

sure to put your essays in a single file, as you can only upload
one file.
In answering the following questions, please try to make
judicious use of all the relevant readings, lectures, and
discussions in the class. I expect you to make your own
arguments and support them, rather than merely enumerating
facts/arguments given by the readings/lectures.
While I applaud any efforts at creativity, I expect your essay to
be firmly grounded in specific materials from this class. Please
provide abbreviated citations when you quote /cite from the
readings (example: Lee, “Yi Kwang-su,” p. 39; Kim, “Hyol-ui
Nu,” Part 1, p. 39). For citations from Cumings’ Korea’s Place,
please indicate the chapter from which you are citing or
quoting, as page number is not given in the pdf file uploaded in
CCLE. No coversheet or bibliography is necessary. Your essays
should be double spaced, 12 point type in a normal font, with
one-inch margins.
Given that you will have three days to work on this exam, I will
not accept any late submissions, unless there is a medical
emergency with proper document from medical doctor/facility.
If I detect any plagiarism in your essays, I will give you F for
the grade. Please see below for a definition of plagiarism.
1) Discuss the concept of “civilization and enlightenment”
(Munmyŏng kaehwa) that appeared in the late nineteenth
century Korea: its sociopolitical and intellectual context, its
relation to nationalism, and Korean intellectuals’ role in it.
Please also incorporate in your discussion Kichung Kim’s
“Hyol-ui Nu: Korea's First ‘New’ Novel” and Ann Lee’s “The
Heartless,” if applicable. Make sure to offer your own critical
assessment of its leaders, their views on modernization, their
impact on the society, and so on.
2) Based on your reading and the lectures in the class so far,

how would you evaluate the divergent paths taken by Korean
nationalist to achieve independence from the Japanese colonial
regime. How did they differ? And how were these divergent
paths related to the political developments immediately after
Korea was liberated from Japan?
3) Evaluate the following statement based on your class
readings and lectures. Whether you agree or disagree with the
statement, you will have to defend your position, based on the
readings in the class. Your discussion should consider the
developments in the immediate aftermath of 1945, the
emergence of two regimes in the Korean peninsula in 1948, and
the role of the United States and the former Soviet Union in
your response. Also, please include the impact of the Korean
war in the post-war South Korea, based on the short stories
(such as “The Rainy Spell” and “Scarlet Fingernails”) we have
discussed in the class.
“The Korean War was civil and revolutionary in character, like
Vietnam War, and it originated with the collapse of Japanese
imperialism and the national division in 1945. The conflict was
fought by political means and with rebellions in 1945-47,
through unconventional guerrilla war from 1948 through 1950,
and by conventional military assaults along the parallel from
May 1949 onward to June 25.”
----------------------------------
“Plagiarism means submitting work as your own that is someone
else’s. For example, copying material from a book or other
source without acknowledging that the words or ideas are
someone else’s and not your own is plagiarism. If you copy an
author’s words exactly, treat the passage as a direct quotation
and supply the appropriate citation. If you use someone else’s
ideas, even if you paraphrase the wording, appropriate credit
should be given. You have committed plagiarism if you

purchase a term paper or submit a paper as your own that you
did not write.” (Barbara G. Davis, Tools for Teaching, p. 300)

Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea- The Origin of Lack .docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea- The Origin of Lack .docx

Similar a Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea- The Origin of Lack .docx (16)

Más de duketjoy27252

Más de duketjoy27252 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea- The Origin of Lack .docx