Comments on: Korean History Textbook Controversy Returns

By: Auri frazier

Auri frazier — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:52:51 +0000

Looking to buy S. Korean math textbook, any grade.

By: James Turnbull

James Turnbull — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:27:11 +0000

Finished that comment too early. I meant to add that that accidental positive side-effect still didn't justify Japanese colonialism, and the possibility of it happening in Tibet doesn't justify the Chinese colonization and absorbtion of Tibet either.

By: James Turnbull

James Turnbull — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:23:38 +0000

No Tom, nobody is saying that. It is undeniable that Japan's rule in Korea was cruel and repressive, and that China's is in Tibet today. It's also true that neither country was exactly given a choice over whether they wanted to be colonized either, and both countries would of course have preferred to modernize by themselves. And nothing justifies events in Tibet in recent weeks.

But the point is that Korea didn't have a state before Japanese colonialsim, but it did after, even though the colonial state was set up entirely for Japan and not Korea's benefit. Denying that serves no useful purpose.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:07:07 +0000

So, by logic, what China is doing in Tibet.. China should stay there and keep modernizing the uncivilized Tibetans, move all the Chinese into Tibet and help the Tibetans. Tibetans should thank China.

By: Surabol

Surabol — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:38:27 +0000

I meant to say some Koreans now might consider Park a US Lackey.

By: GI Korea

GI Korea — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:17:48 +0000

It definitely appears that the Korean far right is doing the same thing the leftists were doing under Roh.

James thanks to the link for the editorial. I took the wording to mean that Japan was helping Korea to establish their own modern state when it was Japan establishing its own modern state in Korea for its own reasons.

Surabol I wouldn't classify Park Chung-hee as a US "lackey". I would consider him a US "client" because he definitely did many things independent of what the US wanted him to do. He was a smart, pragmatic, and authoritarian ruler that had more influence in the creation of the ROK then other Korean leader. However, his authoritarian actions should not be overlooked because of the positive things for the nation he achieved.

Sonagi thanks for adding more clarification of what is in this textbook. This book may even be worse then what the Korean left under Roh published.

By: Sonagi

Sonagi — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:52:17 +0000

This story first appeared in the Korean press a couple of days ago. Missing from the English version is an excerpt on the Gwangju Uprising, which noted that rising anti-Americanism in the 80s was rooted in the belief that the US bore responsibility for the military crackdown. The actual word "responsibility" was used.

The revised textbook also asserted the liberation was achieved not in 1945 but in 1948 with the establishment of the Republic of Korea, which brought guarantees of universal human rights and freedom. Judging by this passage, the textbook overcorrecting leftism and veering far to the right.

By: James Turnbull

James Turnbull — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:27:24 +0000

This doesn't very happen very often with things said in the Korean English-language media, but I think that care needs to be taken with EXACTLY what was said:

"it was the period where Koreans had the time and chance to get the ability to establish a modern state."

That is NOT the same as saying – to paraphrase your comment – that Koreans were "given a chance to establish their own modern state when under colonial rule." The Japanese certainly DID set up a modern state in colonial Korea, and while it wasn't "Korean" then the structures and bureactatic practices and culture of that state were pretty much all that remained in post-Korean War Korea. Hence the new ROK state was pretty similar to that of 10 years earlier, and often with the same personnel.

Personally I'm tired of Koreans dismissing modernization under the Japanese because of the destroying of infastructure. "Developmental State" theorists acknowledge that, and most Japanese-built infastructure was in the North anyway. But state structures remained and were important, and it was THESE are what distinguished South Korea from, say, Nigeria and the Phillipines, with similar levels of GDP in 1953. Korea was not a tabula rasa, its future history determined merely by economic indicators.

I don't know why Korean textbooks can't acknowledge this AND the brutality and mercenary, Japan-centered nature of colonialism, and the dark side of Korea's military regimes AND their developmental and national-security benefits…and then let readers make their minds up for themselves. Like you say, it was not a black-and-white issue, and the fact that it can't be presented as such in Korean school textbooks just goes to show how the issues they raise reflect deep and ongoing divisions still in South Korea today.

By: James Turnbull

James Turnbull — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:03:55 +0000

Sorry, in hindisight my link appears to be an editorial about it and not the article you meant. Here's a link to the article: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/natio...

By: James Turnbull

James Turnbull — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:52:34 +0000

I'm still in the middle of reading, but while I am, the link to the Korea Times article goes to wrong article. Here's a link to the correct one: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/... (Feel free to delete this after you fix the link!)