Menu
close
Home › Forums › Short Online Seminars › Two Koreas, Fall 2019 › Session 2 - October 22, 1945-1994
Maria Blake.
cgaoHow did Kim Il Sung establish a communist monarchy? How did the Korean War and Cold War shape the two Koreas through 1994?
Video: The Two Koreas in the Kim Il Sung era (1948-1994): The Korean War and the Cold War
Readings (download below):
Billie JohnsonHow did Kim Il Sung establish a communist monarchy? How did the Korean War and Cold War shape the two Koreas through 1994?
Kim Il Sung established a communist monarchy because he was chosen to rule the people of North Korea, who were ruled under Confuscianism and a certain order and power structure, found this way of life familiar. Kim Il Sung followed the leadership of Stalin. Sung was a man of the people. The people worshipped him and they were rewarded in kind. As the Soviets occupied North Korea and the Americans occupied South Korea there was the clear divide in social structure and a differing system of beliefs over time. Additionally, Sung knew the fates of Mao in China and Stalin's legacies being diminished in their passing. He knew appointing his son into a position of power would not tarnish his legacy.
The Korean War and Cold War shaped the two Koreas because due to the conflicts and political differences families have been separated. Thousands of families were separated because of the border (38th parallel) that separates the North and the South on the peninsula. The Korean War established differing ideologies, Communism in the North with the South moving towards Capitalism. Also, during the Cold War there were hopes of unifying the peninsula but that still has not happened to this day.
Angelique CallicoatThere's so much to respond to with all of these texts: the 4 readings and the lecture. What I appreciated about all of them was meeting terms in one text and then having those terms explicated in another text. For instance, juche or "self-reliance". Thinking about building a modern country around the idea of absolute self-reliance--in word, if not deed--on its dynastic leaders and its people is fascinating. What happens when a country eschews all outward commerce with other countries? What happens to a society when all good ideas find their origins with Kim family? I want to know what happens to juche in a laboratory or in a hospital. As a secondary ELA teacher in the West, I want to draw a connection from NK's extreme practice of self-reliance to Emerson's idealistic essay "On Self-Reliance". Emerson wrote, "the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness and independence of solitude," and while we're at it, why not Donne? Donne poetically declares "No man is an island, entire of itself." What I'd like to find is texts more substantial and mature than the two children's books with which to build a text set on the different modes of self-reliance (though those children's books no doubt give way to some interesting adult texts). Speeches, maybe, or poetry or song lyrics, like the ones praising the family state and comradely love in "North Korea's Partisan State". It might even be nice to analyze a few different cultures' experience with self-reliance--like China--all through speeches or poetry.
The other thing I'd like to discuss and ask about further is the idea of "reliable history". From Lankov, it seems that the people of NK are not brainwashed nor overly-concerned with the government’s control of information, and yet the most prevalent major in college work is history of the leaders in an educational system that is severely limited in both funding and accurate resources. How do NK citizens think about and pursue the idea of “truth”? I’m reminded of Russia’s state-run newspaper Pravda or “truth”, which most of the citizenry recognized and tolerated as propaganda for the state’s benefit. They were able to participate in Orwellian group double-think. What do NK people want to know about? And is the “truth” a necessary quality of that knowledge?
As I listened to and thought about South Korea’s reconstruction after the war, I was both impressed and overwhelmed by all the changes that such a new country was able to handle: from all those republics and new constitutions to students protests and assassinations. I think about someone who currently lives in SK, someone who was a child during the Korean War and remains there today. How would this person describe the SK’s first 50 years? How did the protests and economic struggles up until the 70s affect that person’s young adult and middle age years? What was schooling like? Where were SK’s doctors and scientists and engineers educated? What was the workforce like? Consumer goods--what sorts of things did the citizens of this new nation want to work toward? Reading the Je-Yeon Yuh text about the countless lives that were shattered by the war made me really want to find about more about what living during the reconstruction was like.
The New York Times has a series called Op-Docs and there is one particular installment about South Korean children who were adopted in countries like the US and Australia. These first-hand video accounts of what it was like to be separated from their birth families and absorbed into very different cultures are moving. They connect well with the “Beyond Numbers” piece we all read. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeIC1detnD8 Are all the adoptions considered part of the "brutality of the Korean War"? I also want to know why so many adoptees come from SK, both then and now. Is there an under-served part of the population that struggled/es with the consequences of all the post-war changes and upheavals?
Looking forward to talking with everyone tomorrow night.
Gail Shaw-HawkinsAs I listen to the video and read through the reading of today, I realize how two countries could remain at odds and alienated for more than 70 years, especially since there was for only a single and unified Korea for centuries which was governed by generations of ruling kingdoms. But thinking of the two opposing superpowers today United States and Russia still struggling for control even now it shows how cold war can last a long time. I remember watch “ Ode to my Father’ a while ago and laughing at some scenes but then crying in the end but look forward to watching it again.
Len KriegerI really enjoyed the video lecture, it really made me think about how I teach about Korea and the Cold War going forward. When I normally teach about it in World History, I drill and drill it was cold because no shots were fired between the Soviets and Americans, but Dr. Jung-Kim made the point that though their war was proxy, there was a civil war going on between the two Koreas which made it hot between them.
The light bulb went off for me and got a lot of ideas of how I can now use the Koreas as an extension of the main talking point I hit which is it was only intimidation and aggression between the Soviet Union and United States, but there were countries at the time like North and South Korea who were fighting a civil war along with Vietnam and try to find pictures, videos, and document based questions to use as a hook to delve further into why they were at war and how it applied to the US and USSR.
I also enjoyed to get to know the leaders and how and why they came to power. The whole rebulic system was fascinating to me and is something I was unaware that happened in Korea, because it seemed though each leader served each regime seperately they were similar in the fact that issues like popularity, term limits, economic/ political growth and expansion and corruption, culture builders and promters (i.e. 88 Olympics), were prevalent in almost all.
Len KriegerAfter the zoom session last night, I found out the answer to the question I posed 'how did the Olympics impact Roh Tae Woo's election in the same year and how did he feel overall about having them there the same year he was elected?'
I was amazed to learn that the Olympics were so important to South Korea's global image at that time and that it had to be a successful event. Also, that Roh Tae Woo wasn't as fearful as hosting them the year he got elected as I would have been if were the new leader coming into the 6th republic. The Olympics to me, is the one global event that puts the spotlight on all the countries of the world every four years, and to think all that goes into it logistically to make it successful and becoming a new leader in a country at the same time is really mind blowing. I also, found it interesting that Korea was one of the few countries to ever host both winter and summer olympic games. Being from Texas, I am almost certain we'd never be asked to host a winter olympics haha.
Len KriegerBillie,
After reading your post and the last sentence of it, it got me thinking about how powerful that statement you made was ":there were hopes of unifying the peninsula, but that still has not happened to this day"
I thought about this and it's amazing considering how long ago the Korean war was and there is still the differences we are learning about that they share today. It also made me think about Vietnam during this time period. During the Cold War, when the Vietnam War took place and was finally over, it only took a few years before North and South Vietnam reunified and became the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that we know of today. I wonder if Vietnam has ever had conversations with North and South Korea or gave them advice or feedback on how they reunited even after the devestation the country went through? In a weird way ,it kind of gave me hope that the two Koreas would reunite one day, and if and when that ever happens, I just hope and pray I am still around to see it, I am not going to hold my breath for that though.
Maria BlakeThe information gained through the article on “Korea’s 20th Century Odyssey” was new to me in most respects and familiar in fewer others.
To begin with, it was known to me that the U.S. military went to fight in Korea for reasons that had to do with fears of a new Communistic wave that would spread through the rest of the world, if left unchecked. It was known to me, moreover, that the war engaged the U.S. and Korea in a war that depended on napalm bombing and that there were deaths as a result of such a warfare. At different times, I have had students who told me they had one grandparent who fought during the Korean war.
Nonetheless, there were many more things that were unfamiliar to me. For one thing, it was how the war was perceived by the U.S. as a “police action,” or a conflict, but not a war. In this light, the United Nations came to be the overarching commanding entity that became involved and sanctioned the use of weapons for the purpose of defending peace and order. The commander of the United Nations military representation in Korea was an American commander, general MacArthur, who was blamed later for risking the lives of the military by attempting to forge forward, when the outcome would have been potentially disastrous, particularly, when China joined the North Koreans in their effort to defeat the attacks with their own use of weaponry. Some intellectuals were, also, fearful of the onset of the WWIII, if nuclear weapons were part of the subsequent military conflicts on the ground. In the same light, I did not know the confrontations were so intense at different times during the war that would lead to the city of Seoul being overrun four times in the three-year war, assumingly, by both the North Koreans and the South Koreans, which suggests the war front was moving north and south depending on how the military was positioned toward the two major cities, Seoul and Pyongyang, which determined the degree of success of either sides involved in the conflict; that is, if the front line was moving down to Seoul, it meant the North Koreans were being successful in maintaining their defense and they were aggressively moving south to defeat the foreign troops and South Koreans and occupy the entire Korean peninsula. But, if the front line was moving up to Pyongyang, it suggested the UN troops were making progress.
Furthermore, other things that were unfamiliar to me were how there were so many victims from both sides, but mostly from the Korean side, regardless of whether they were North, or South Korean. The article points out that there were: “ 33,626 Americans, while hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Koreans(North and South) soldiers, and millions of civilians died in the brutal police action.”(Robinson) The heartbreaking truth was the high death toll of civilians, which makes me think that in every war the civilians are those who suffer the most, even though the government and those involved in directly conflict suffer less. The war ended in a truce, also, although I thought it ended after two-to-three years. This makes it clearer why today the situation between the North and South Koreas are still intense, and there is military at the border division between the two countries, which remained the same ever since the first establishment of the 38 parallel division line before the outbreak of the war.
Finally, the article spoke about North Korean’s bunker mentality, which was something I did not know, and how such a mentality originated in the fear the country has of a future threat of bombing. That the country was devastated during the war is the cause of this fear and the hatred that exists in the history of North Korea towards the West, and in particular, towards the U.S. that had caused all the devastation. The thought that the country was able “ with “the tenacious will of the government, the determined leadership of the centralized mass party” to make the country stand on its own feet is a testament of how strong the government exerts its influence on the people. The author describes the people’s bunker mentality as paranoia, which had led to the building of “defenses and strategic industries into Korea’s ubiquitous granite hills and mountains.” (Robinson)The use of nuclear weapons is one way the country could defend itself and that is a scary reality. The latter explains why not only the West but also China, Japan, and South Korea are on the alert and supporting sanctions on North Korea to keep the area safe. The U.S. is also supportive of such measures because any nuclear conflict has global consequences.
Maria BlakeFrom the discussions we did last week on the Korean era of 1945 through 1994, what stood out to me was the understanding that we all had that North Korea is a country that is enveloped in mystery, which makes us more curious to know about what is going on within in terms of the life people lead and the way the government runs in that part of the world sealed from the outside world community unlike any other country we know, and perhaps, our students know. Some of the interesting points we discussed, and which can be shared with our students in class in connection to the study of government types and the impact that those have on life and experience, are as follows:
First, it is the understanding that leadership informs the progress of a country and of its people. There is hope that the new leadership in North Korea, for instance, will be more open for dialogue and negotiations than the previous one, since we talked about how the earlier rulers of North Korea were more reclusive than the one that rules the country nowadays. Second, it is the point about the widespread symbolism in North Korean statues of the sickle, the hammer, and the calligraphy brush. I did not know that the last one meant bureaucracy. Students can begin to see meaning in the symbols they see around them, whether those are statues, or the currency of the dollar and the symbols represented within. Third, we talked about the shogun principle that was an important way to understand the government in North Korea with its emphasis on a centralized government that needs a military in order to keep its power centralized. Students can use this lens to interpret more instances of shogun in the politics of any war and conflict they study about in literature. The military is the source of pride in every country. Students can study the role of the military and its agency as an important tool for totalitarianism, but also for democracy and freedom.
Finally, regardless of how mysterious and reclusive North Korea appears to us, and also regardless of how precarious has been the process of democratization of South Korea, we talked about events and life experiences that humanize the former and make South Korea a vital force in building international communication and relations with global communities. For instance, we talked about the desire that exists in North Koreans to check the news in an unofficial way, such as when they are able to check the internet through signals received from China, particularly, for those living close to the border with China. There are humanitarian agencies, moreover, with Red Cross as one of them, who support the union of families for long separated because of the war. The role of such agencies suggests that their services are not entirely oppressed. In addition, we talked about the participation of South Korea in the 1992 World Cup, which suggests to me how sports can bring people together and unite them, regardless of past enmities, or divisions.
Maria BlakeThere were several things that I learned through this video clip, which helped me understand better the history and the reality of the two Koreas currently.
First, it was that North Korea was invaded by the Soviets and the South Koreans by the Americans at the end of WII. Koreans could not agree on a single government, so they had to establish their own government and the country was divided along the 38 parallel line several miles north of Seoul. The instability of a political government allowed for the establishment of a centralized government, or the involvement of foreign powers, as it was what happened in the above political contexts. Dynastic Communism rules in North Korea, whereas democracy rules the government in South Korea. Students benefit from knowing how government plays a role in the shaping of the life of a country.
Over the course of the presentation, also, it became clearer to me that governments have a big influence over history and culture. The first president of North Korea, Kim II Sung, had no significant political education, or family lineage, but because of his experience as a guerrilla fighter in Manchuria, he learned the tactics to win the game of politics and, thus, he won the first presidential seat of North Korea, and it seems he became the reason for the establishment of socialist monarchy and dynastic socialism in the country that would inform all the subsequent types of government. Such government types explain the anti-capitalistic ideologies that define the life of North Koreans versus their counterparts in the South. Being anti-capitalistic, though, suggests there are lurking seeds of anti-U.S. ideologies, which might not be espoused necessarily by the people but they are supported by the government, unless the government changes its ruler and the ruler shows signs of being more willing to keep open the paths of communication with the outside world.
In contrast to North Korea, South Korea had to go through a rough path to the establishment of its government, just because it deviated from the path of a centralized government ideology. It was unknown to me that South Koreans had to experience some form of dictatorship before they reached the current state of democracy. During the presentation it was made clear to me how the reason for such turbulent times was the fear that existed in the South for an imminent threat from the north in the form of another military campaign, or the threat of communism, which resulted in a strict and centralized government such as that by Rhee, who eliminated opponents and was considered “ a ruthless ruler.” But through subsequent governments, who contributed in different ways to write the constitution, democracy was coming to be a stronger influence. It surprised me to learn there were, also, student protests that contributed to the democratization of the government over time. It was interesting to learn that the rapid economic growth that followed the government of Roh Tae Woe was a more certain assurance of the road to democratization that was paved for South Koreans. Nonetheless, such a process would not have been achieved, overall, according to the information in the presentation, if it was not for “the struggles by the students, intellectuals, and workers.” The case with South Korea is a good example to show how the path to democracy is a path hard won for every country, as it happened in the U.S. in the colonial times.
Jennifer Jung-KimHi, Everyone,
I don't have much in the way of follow-up to our Zoom discussion, but please do post questions if you have any. Also, I encourage more people to participate in the Zoom discussion, not only by logging in, but by offering feedback. I am very impressed by your forum posts but I would like to hear from more people on Zoom as well.
For those of you in wildfire zones, stay safe and see you tomorrow!
Best,
Jennifer
Maria BlakeAngelique--
The link on the adopted children from South Korea was really interesting and reminded me of "Ode to My Father" and the sense of loss the brother experienced from having lost his father and baby sister during the Korean War. In both contexts we see how the issue of family and belongingness is foregrounded as a cultural value that was jeopardised because of the Korean conflict in the case of the movie, but I wonder what the reason was for the adoption of children in large numbers from south Korea in later years. I knew about Chinese adoptions, mostly of girls, but not of the same practice in South Korea. Is it possible to conjecture that, since the Korean War that has officially not ended because of the division between the two countries that keeps the two countries still apart economically and politically, such a reality has given rise to this sense of loss to a deeper extent than it would otherwise would have been. Is the sense of loss the mature individuals speak and communicate through the tone of their talk, as they recollect their experiences of adoption and loss of a sense of belongingness, then, a byproduct of a collective sense of loss from being raised away from "the mother country," instead of just a consequence of an individual sense of loss as a result of having grown up feeling "given away" by their natural families? Thankful for the insightful link.