Comments on: Korean Books at SOAS 3: Biography of Yŏ Un-hyŏng http://kotaji.blogsome.com/2005/08/08/korean-books-at-soas-3/ Thoughts on Korea, northeast Asia, history and other things Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:21:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: kotaji http://kotaji.blogsome.com/2005/08/08/korean-books-at-soas-3/#comment-156 Mon, 23 Jan 2006 01:00:30 +0000 http://kotaji.blogsome.com/2005/08/08/korean-books-at-soas-3/#comment-156 I think this is a question of how you define imperialism. Your definition seems to be one of formal domination typified by colonialism. Certainly this was a key component of imperialism during a particular period of its history (mainly the late nineteenth century), but many writers, both on the right and left expand imperialism to include the informal domination (economic, political, cultural) of one country by another. I'm thinking specifically of the sense of imperialism as it is used by a number of contemporary theorists like David Harvey, Alex Callinicos and Giovanni Arrighi. That is: modern capitalist imperialism is the result of the integration of economic competition between capitals and geopolitical competition between states. In the context of the nascent cold war and the very beginning of the grand geopolitical game that would last until the late 80s, the setting up of buffer states on the Korean peninsula by both the US and the Soviets was an understandable goal for both sides. But not all Koreans wanted to pick sides and I think Yŏ Un-hyŏng is an interesting example of someone for whom there was really no space in the postwar environment. I think this is a question of how you define imperialism. Your definition seems to be one of formal domination typified by colonialism. Certainly this was a key component of imperialism during a particular period of its history (mainly the late nineteenth century), but many writers, both on the right and left expand imperialism to include the informal domination (economic, political, cultural) of one country by another. I’m thinking specifically of the sense of imperialism as it is used by a number of contemporary theorists like David Harvey, Alex Callinicos and Giovanni Arrighi. That is: modern capitalist imperialism is the result of the integration of economic competition between capitals and geopolitical competition between states.

In the context of the nascent cold war and the very beginning of the grand geopolitical game that would last until the late 80s, the setting up of buffer states on the Korean peninsula by both the US and the Soviets was an understandable goal for both sides. But not all Koreans wanted to pick sides and I think Yŏ Un-hyŏng is an interesting example of someone for whom there was really no space in the postwar environment.

]]> by: lirelou http://kotaji.blogsome.com/2005/08/08/korean-books-at-soas-3/#comment-152 Fri, 20 Jan 2006 02:28:16 +0000 http://kotaji.blogsome.com/2005/08/08/korean-books-at-soas-3/#comment-152 I'm not sure that the charge of "imperialism" sticks to either the Soviets or the U.S. in Korea's case. Where is the evidence that either country intended to turn the Koreans into a subject people, working for the greater glory of the metropoli? My understanding is that the Soviets intended to set up a Soviet state on their perimeter. An understandable goal. Yes, they pretty much dictated to Kim Il-sung for the first five years, to include mandating a Soviet style land reform and editing his speeches, which evidences a degree of control far exceeding that the U.S. exerted over Syngman Rhee, but once the Kim state was up and running, my impression is that it was essentially on its own. As for the U.S., their position in the liberated territories was clear. THey would recognize no government that hadn'n been elected by its people. Thus their goal to establish a state that rested upon the will of its electorate that would eventually be recognized as a fully functioning independent state. However noble that goal, it appears in retrospect to have been unworkable ab initio. That makes the U.S. incompetent liberators, but hardly imperialists. I’m not sure that the charge of “imperialism” sticks to either the Soviets or the U.S. in Korea’s case. Where is the evidence that either country intended to turn the Koreans into a subject people, working for the greater glory of the metropoli? My understanding is that the Soviets intended to set up a Soviet state on their perimeter. An understandable goal. Yes, they pretty much dictated to Kim Il-sung for the first five years, to include mandating a Soviet style land reform and editing his speeches, which evidences a degree of control far exceeding that the U.S. exerted over Syngman Rhee, but once the Kim state was up and running, my impression is that it was essentially on its own. As for the U.S., their position in the liberated territories was clear. THey would recognize no government that hadn’n been elected by its people. Thus their goal to establish a state that rested upon the will of its electorate that would eventually be recognized as a fully functioning independent state. However noble that goal, it appears in retrospect to have been unworkable ab initio. That makes the U.S. incompetent liberators, but hardly imperialists.

]]>