Don't Know Much About History
(But I'm Good at Ranting)

Didn't post anything yesterday because I was not at work -- yay! -- and instead attending a lecture on Korea in the 20th century. It was fairly basic stuff -- as Mia put it, "I read this in Lonely Planet" -- but always nice to get a refresher. I do wish, though that the professor, who delivered the lecture in English, would have elaborated on his opinions instead of just throwing them here and there without explanation. Like, WHY do you think the two Koreas will be united someday? Do YOU believe that North Korea is really going to go nuclear? If the U.S. will never give up its right to be part of the East Asian community (like the EU), how will that play out in the development of an East Asian community (questionable in itself) ?

There were a couple very interesting points the prof made. One was the presentation of the "modernization via colonization" theory, which posits that compared to colonial India and African nations, Korea was more advanced during its colonial period. During Japanese colonization, the Japanese organized a bureaucratic structure (a post office, police station and governor for every town); registered all land and persons, and mandated universal education for 6 years. (Basically the same argument that considers British colonization as a good thing for India.)

The professor was clearly opposed to this take on Japanese colonization, stating that it was "controversial" but that we would take a look at it anyway. He stated, yes, that these points were all true, but that the theory did not take into account the suffering of the Korean people at the time.

Like most historical debates, both sides have a certain amount of truth to them (why can't academics just own up to this? because they'd be out of a job). There was terrible suffering. There was signficant modernization. Do these two statements have to be at odds? Can't each side acknowledge the truth of the other? Does anyone really think that the modernists want to demean the pain of the Korean people during colonization? Isn't it just emphasizing one aspect of history at the expense of another, just as focusing only on suffering necessarily deemphasizes other aspects of the period?

Sheesh.

A slightly tense and thus interesting moment during the lecture was when a Russian (I think) man asked why Koreans have so much hate toward the Japanese when they shared so much culture. The professor asked if there were any Indians in the audience who would say how Indians felt about the British. The Indian man who replied said that there had been significant progress during the 200+ years of British colonial rule, and that Indians actually respected the British (post-colonial studies notwithstanding, I guess). Ajay, the Indian-American guy in my class, whispered, "Yeah, but the British were much less harsh colonial rulers than the French or the Dutch or the Japanese."

The professor responded, "I'm sure to westerners, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans look quite similar. But just as in the case of French and German and Spanish people, we're all quite different." And proceeded to follow up with something that I've forgotten but that I remember as being an ineffectual answer to the question.

I'm pretty sure the questioner knew the differences between the three countries. An effective answer would have followed Ajay's logic, and reminded the questioner that he had already heard the lecturer speak of the one million "comfort women" and the millions of men drafted as laborers for the Japanese army, to work and die in the south Pacific islands. (Here I am reminded, most inappropriately, of Bridget Jones' Diary, in which the ex-wife of Mr. Darcy is described as: "Japanese. Very cruel race.")

The professor opined that the U.S. would never give up its cozy home in Seoul, despite threats to pull out, etc. The Korean War was the result of geopolitical maneuvering; i.e., the Cold War. The U.S. went to Korea because they did not want Russia to control the Korean peninsula, and they are here to this day because they want a foothold on the doorstep of Asia.

This makes sense. Except. What about the 26,000 troops based in Japan? Also, I'm not convinced that the U.S. would never abandon the base in Seoul -- I don't think think that takes into account enough the domestic American political environment. If W. thought it was pointless to keep soldiers there, I think he'd pull 'em out. Currently, though, I agree that it seems unlikely, from a strategic perspective, that we'd get out of Seoul. On the other hand, Americans are on the whole totally bewildered by the anti-Americanism in Korea, and there have been calls to get out. As my uncle, who was career army and lived in Seoul for a little while, has said: "The Korean people seem to forget how much the U.S. did for them after the war."

Fascinating and frustrating. I'm learning more about Korean history and the roots of the current situation here, which makes me realize that this is a truly fascinating time in Asia. China admits it was wrong to cover up SARS in the beginning! North Korea clamors for attention with nukes! South Korea elects a liberal for president! Japan passes a revision of its non-aggression policy, which states that preventative military action is okay!

At the same time, it is so frustrating to see the narrowness of each viewpoint when contradictory evidence seems so clear. America is an imperialist occupier. Right, so ... exactly where is the oppression and suppression? Korea is an ungrateful country. Uh huh, and when have YOU ever longed to be taken seriously as an autonomous nation-state? Modernizer theorists don't take the suffering of Koreans seriously. You're right, there was NO modernization during colonization! How come Koreans can't get over their hate of the Japanese? Good lord, man, you're right! 'Cause if YOUR grandmother been kidnapped and forced to sexually service up to 12 colonizers at a time, you'd be able to forgive and forget, no problem!

Sheesh.