By Mark Peterson
One of the core elements of Korea's view of its own history is that of multiple invasions. It's a story almost everyone accepts. But it's the key element of my argument that Korean history needs to be rewritten ― at least revised, from my perspective as a frog that has come out of the well.
In the early days of my studies of Korean history, I felt I should be an authentic representative of Korea in telling her story. And though I did not agree with many points of standard Korean history, I used to feel I had to be loyal to Korea, somehow, and not give a variant history ― because that could be called a "distortion" ― a common criticism of historical points of view that don't line up with the accepted point of view.
And the problem is further exacerbated by nationalism and the feelings of victimization of Korea by Japanese distortions of history over time. I have seen students criticize Americans as espousing a Japanese point of view, when they express a viewpoint that is different from the standard Korean history. Sensitivities can run very high.
When, therefore, I started to criticize the standard Korean history, I was prepared to be attacked as being disloyal to Korea. But the opposite happened. Korean audiences have agreed with me and, in fact, say they prefer my out-of-the-well point of view.
I have given my presentations at numerous places, and the response is uniformly and enthusiastically accepting. I've been surprised. I think there is acceptance, because I'm not just making one or two criticisms of Korean history, but I'm making a whole package of criticisms, a complete revamping ― and as a complete package, a comprehensive re-evaluation of Korean history.
Key to this rewriting of Korean history, this view outside the well, is the concept of multiple invasions. It is my view that if we compare Korea to many, many other countries, we see more invasions and wars in other countries ― look at Poland for example. The British Islands, Israel/Palestine and many other countries have had many more invasions ― just Google it (do a quick websearch of "invasions" "list of invasions") and you will see Korea has had very few invasions, compared with other countries. If the frog is in the well, yes, there have been many painful invasions, but if the frog is out of the well, we see Korea has a remarkably peaceful, stable history.
I argued in my last column that Korea had only suffered two major invasions. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but all other invasions were significantly less in magnitude and impact. I mentioned last time that the two Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636 were for the purpose of making Korea an ally of the Manchu ― a friend, not an enemy. The Manchus did not rape, plunder and steal, the way the Japanese and Mongols did. They secured the alliance they wanted, and left. Korea violated the agreement, and the Manchus invaded again, and left.
There are other challenges to my point of view, one from the 20th century and one from the seventh century. The 20th century has been horrific for Korea ― taken over by the Japanese, liberated by the Americans, only to be divided by the Americans, which led to the Korean War which is still unsettled, and Korea is still divided.
The 20th century takeover by the Japanese was marked by an invasion, but it was not an invasion aimed at Korea, per se. The invasion was by the Japanese to confront the Chinese. The Chinese were invited in to quell the 1894-95 Donghak Uprising because it had grown too big for the Korean army to suppress, and Korea called on its old ally, China, to assist. But that was the excuse the Japanese needed to start a war with China ― and most of the battles were on Korean soil and in Korean waters. But Japan's enemy was not Korea; the Japanese forces were fighting the Chinese. Therefore, to simply suggest Japan invaded Korea in 1894 does not adequately describe what happened ― this was not just a Japanese invasion of Korea, certainly not like that in 1592.
The next major invasion of the 20th century was of course, the North Korean invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950. While the consequences in terms of death and destruction were as bad as the worst of the invasions of Korea's past, the invasion was one half of Korea against the other half ― not a foreign invasion. Of course, one can argue the North Koreans were surrogates for the Soviets and the South was a surrogate for the United States or the United Nations.
My point of view is admittedly one of de-emphasizing invasions. The frog-in-the-well argument, however, has over-emphasized the invasion motif, to the point where Korea is portrayed as hapless and weak. My argument is that Korea has not been helpless and weak, and that the few cases where Korea has been the victim of foreign powers are just that ― few.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is associate professor of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
(0).jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
In the early days of my studies of Korean history, I felt I should be an authentic representative of Korea in telling her story. And though I did not agree with many points of standard Korean history, I used to feel I had to be loyal to Korea, somehow, and not give a variant history ― because that could be called a "distortion" ― a common criticism of historical points of view that don't line up with the accepted point of view.
And the problem is further exacerbated by nationalism and the feelings of victimization of Korea by Japanese distortions of history over time. I have seen students criticize Americans as espousing a Japanese point of view, when they express a viewpoint that is different from the standard Korean history. Sensitivities can run very high.
When, therefore, I started to criticize the standard Korean history, I was prepared to be attacked as being disloyal to Korea. But the opposite happened. Korean audiences have agreed with me and, in fact, say they prefer my out-of-the-well point of view.
I have given my presentations at numerous places, and the response is uniformly and enthusiastically accepting. I've been surprised. I think there is acceptance, because I'm not just making one or two criticisms of Korean history, but I'm making a whole package of criticisms, a complete revamping ― and as a complete package, a comprehensive re-evaluation of Korean history.
Key to this rewriting of Korean history, this view outside the well, is the concept of multiple invasions. It is my view that if we compare Korea to many, many other countries, we see more invasions and wars in other countries ― look at Poland for example. The British Islands, Israel/Palestine and many other countries have had many more invasions ― just Google it (do a quick websearch of "invasions" "list of invasions") and you will see Korea has had very few invasions, compared with other countries. If the frog is in the well, yes, there have been many painful invasions, but if the frog is out of the well, we see Korea has a remarkably peaceful, stable history.
I argued in my last column that Korea had only suffered two major invasions. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but all other invasions were significantly less in magnitude and impact. I mentioned last time that the two Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636 were for the purpose of making Korea an ally of the Manchu ― a friend, not an enemy. The Manchus did not rape, plunder and steal, the way the Japanese and Mongols did. They secured the alliance they wanted, and left. Korea violated the agreement, and the Manchus invaded again, and left.
There are other challenges to my point of view, one from the 20th century and one from the seventh century. The 20th century has been horrific for Korea ― taken over by the Japanese, liberated by the Americans, only to be divided by the Americans, which led to the Korean War which is still unsettled, and Korea is still divided.
The 20th century takeover by the Japanese was marked by an invasion, but it was not an invasion aimed at Korea, per se. The invasion was by the Japanese to confront the Chinese. The Chinese were invited in to quell the 1894-95 Donghak Uprising because it had grown too big for the Korean army to suppress, and Korea called on its old ally, China, to assist. But that was the excuse the Japanese needed to start a war with China ― and most of the battles were on Korean soil and in Korean waters. But Japan's enemy was not Korea; the Japanese forces were fighting the Chinese. Therefore, to simply suggest Japan invaded Korea in 1894 does not adequately describe what happened ― this was not just a Japanese invasion of Korea, certainly not like that in 1592.
The next major invasion of the 20th century was of course, the North Korean invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950. While the consequences in terms of death and destruction were as bad as the worst of the invasions of Korea's past, the invasion was one half of Korea against the other half ― not a foreign invasion. Of course, one can argue the North Koreans were surrogates for the Soviets and the South was a surrogate for the United States or the United Nations.
My point of view is admittedly one of de-emphasizing invasions. The frog-in-the-well argument, however, has over-emphasized the invasion motif, to the point where Korea is portrayed as hapless and weak. My argument is that Korea has not been helpless and weak, and that the few cases where Korea has been the victim of foreign powers are just that ― few.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is associate professor of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
![[PHOTOS] Kep1er returns with 'Magic Hour' to mesmerize fans](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/cd6a652dcfe345fe92b760583c5eb68a.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
