The Origin of Korea

The Origin of Korea

: Dynamic Interaction between Koreans and Foreign Powers in the Liberation Space

 

 

 

 

In October 2015, the South Korean government took a decision to use only state-issued history textbooks. At that time, the then president Park Geun-hye emphasized the significance of the ‘correct’ history more than once. What is the correct history she said? The Education Minister Hwang Woo-yeo said the following: “existing history textbooks are very inappropriate to be used to teach students because of its communistic narratives.” In light of this mention, they must have regarded nationalistic and anti-communistic narratives as the correct history. In this respect, it is no doubt that the government’s policy concerning a history textbook was political, irresponsible, and anachronistic. 

 

 

▲

History textbooks issued by The Educational Ministry  of Park Geun-hye administaration

 

 

Nonetheless, their point is still a controversial issue in the contemporary Korean society. The most sensitive part is how to evaluate the period of the “liberation space”, from 1945 to 1948, and the establishment of the Korean government. By the 1990s, studies had mostly emphasized either internal or external aspects to define the liberated Korea’s characteristics. The former pay attention to two indigenous forces, North and South Korea, whereas the latter places emphasis on influences from the Soviet and the US. The historical evaluations on the liberation space and the Korean government establishment are considerably different according to what scholars focus on. Such various points show the fact that historical situations of the liberation space were very convoluted and controversial. How should we understand this period in Korean modern history?

 

Hwang Kyoung-moon, a professor of Korean history at USC, gives a good answer to the question. He elaborately analyzes the historical process from 1945 to 1950 and comprehensively examines various aspects from the time: “the two occupation armies and governments, the various Korean organizations of all ideological stripes, the emigrant workers and independence activists returning to their homeland, those who benefited from as well as those victimized by the colonial wartime mobilization, and so on.” He never denies repercussions from the outside forces, but rather obviously recognizes foreign intervention, especially of Soviet Union and the US. According to him, “the division of the peninsula into separate northern and southern occupation zones headed by the Soviet and the US, respectively, turned the peninsula into the first Asian theater of the emerging rivalry between these Second World War allies: the Cold War.” 

 

He, however, pays attention to Korean convoluted conflicts in circumstances set by foreign powers, and to Koreans’ responses to the external influence. According to him, the rightists and leftists had a discord for years owing to their contrasting ways to establish new state, and it was also connected with the Soviet Union and the American military government. In this point, it was a more significant variable in the liberation space that Korean political leaders or organizations came into close relation with the foreign forces. Indeed, the rightists led by Rhee Syngman and Kim Ku “maneuvered incessantly to block any outcome that might incorporate moderates in a power-sharing arrangement.” “The American occupation, too, did its part in ensuring the victory of the immoderate right wing” in the southern of peninsula, and the rightists won a victory as a result. 

 

 

▲

Opposing views on trusteeship in the Liberation Space

 

 

In effect, Hwang looks into the historical circumstances of the liberation space, paying attention to the interrelations between both internal and external conditions. This approach is reasonable in that it demonstrates a dynamism and complexity of the liberation space. That being said, he seems to overlook some important points. When Koreans were liberated from Japanese colonial regime, they eagerly aspire to build a unified nation-state. Yet their focus gradually turned from nation-state into ideological problem during experiencing a series of ideological conflicts. Given ideological disputes throughout Korean modern history, it seems very significant point.