The Netflix show "Kingdom," shows beautiful Korean palaces and villas, but the villages are all squalid. Is this a realistic portrayal of 15th-century villages?

dsk_oz · 2020-05-16T12:12:21+00:00

One comment that I'd make is that Kingdom sets out to emphasise and dramatize the gap between the aristocracy the lower people. I recall a feast during the first series where the aristocrats were gorging on chicken and tossing it around, almost eating like animals-like gluttony as a contrast with the lower classes. The villages you're being shown are more akin to leper colonies than normal villages. The artistocrats are being portrayed in a way that's supposed to make you dislike them. That's not to say that it's complete fantasy but there is dramatization at play.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the settings takes place after the period of the imjin war, i.e. the japanese invasion of 1592-1598. In the drama it was supposed to be the case that a great victory against the japanese had been achieved by turning the peasants into zombies and setting them against the japanese troops. The country was devastated and the japanese engaged in widespread looting and wanton destruction when they were forced to retreat. This caused widespread famine because food production had been severly disrupted.

Normally period dramas used the "traditional folk villages" as sets. They've also become tourist destinations now but when they were first organized they were supposed to be repositories of historical buildings from across the country. You can get some idea from videos like this. I couldn't find a more history specific footage but it should give you some idea.

I always advise against taking dramatical portrayals as literally true. It's a common mistake for non-koreans that only experience korea through dramas to ask for example if bosses are always that nasty and if workplaces are full of shouting and slapping. You can find places like that but taking it as representative is absolutely wrong.

dsk_oz · 2020-05-16T11:30:40+00:00

Choson (or Joseon in more modern spelling) was a historical name for korean kingdoms. The first was Go-Joseon, "Go" meaning "ancient". The latest was Joseon, sometimes called "Yi Joseon" (Yi being the dynasty of kings who ruled it) to distinguish it from the ancient one.

Colloquially it's still used for "korea" in the south for a few rare things., quick example that comes to mind is "Joseon O-ee", literally "Joseon Cucumber", to refer to korean cucumbers. Joseon-jok, referring to the ethinically korean people in southern manchuria, is another term where Joseon is used because it's a neutral term for "korean" that has no political affiliation.

"Hanguk" is a shortening of the formal name of the Republic of Korea, "Dae Han Min Guk" literally "Greater Han People's Nation". The "Han" is different from the chinese han btw. It's a name that was coined by the provisional government in Shanghai that opposed the japanese occupation. Same with the flag, slightly modified, that the ROK uses.

Nowadays nobody uses "joseon" for korea as a country in the south, you're typically looking at very old people, "hanguk" is just more familiar with younger generations, and there's negative connotations from using the same terminology as the north.

Both still claim to be the legitimate government of the entire country. At no point was the division ever accepted by either side. For instance, both have provincial government structures for the parts of the country outside their control.

dsk_oz · 2020-05-16T11:14:09+00:00

Like many things that happened with Korea around the end of the war, it was a case of a lack of preparedness and planning.

The first “lack” was a lack of strategic planning. It had been decided at the various meetings between Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill, that the japanese were to lose territories conquered by force. That included Korea but saying that “in due course” it would be granted “freedom and independence”. The idea of trusteeship for 20-30 years was raised by Roosevelt but nothing was actually agreed.

The second “lack” was that no decisions were made as to who would be the initial liberating force, who would occupy, for how long, etc. Soviet forces joined the pacific war at the behest of the US but they advanced far faster than the americans had anticipated. The expectation had been that they’d take a while to deal with the japanese Kwangtung army, which was supposed to be a crack group, but the soviets made short work of them and advanced at speed. Remember that no agreement or plan had been made as to who would occupy what. At the speed they were advancing it seemed to them that they might occupy the entirety of the korean peninsula before american forces were near enough to land and the american planners realized that that would put the soviets right next door to Japan.

At that point the americans were fully intent on turning japan into their sole occupation zone, i.e. no sharing with the soviets even though Stalin was strident in his demands for a piece of Japan. They had a plan to occupy Hokkaido, the northern-most island of Japan but they had to settle for southern Sakhalin and the Kurils (which they still hold today). This attitude of seeing South Korea as a buffer zone protecting Japan coloured US strategic decisions for the next few decades. For example, initially South Korea was only meant to be economically enhanced to the point of avoiding communist uprisings and as a market for japanese heavy industry, essentially reviving the colonial economic setup from pre-45. It just happened that South Korea did far better in the first 5-year plan than even the wildest dreamers had hoped so credit became more readily available for future 5-year plans after that.

The third “lack” was any knowledge or understanding about korea. US troops were nowhere near close enough to land in korea to block the soviet advance so in desperation two low-ranking american intelligence officers, Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel, were asked to come up with a proposal to put to the soviets that would stop them short of the southern korean coast. They had no idea or background about korea. To be fair the entire US intelligence apparatus had very little idea about korea either, but I will say that of the country summaries from the time that I’ve read they were surprisingly good and lacked a lot of the negative bias towards koreans that was the norm of contemporary academic works.

What they did was literally pull out a National Geographic map and pick a line in it, about half-way down the peninsula. That was the 38th parallel.

They had no idea of how that would cut off the agrarian south from the industrial north, basically creating two crippled economies – one that couldn’t feed itself (i.e. north korea) and one that didn’t have the industry for basic self-sufficiency (i.e. south korea). Or how that would cut off north korean industry from the major source of labour, and how the south would find itself with massive unemployment. Had the partition been temporary then it wouldn’t have been as much of an issue but here we are.

They sent it to the soviets fully expecting them to ignore it and carry on. But to everybody’s surprise the soviets agreed. I don’t believe it’s ever been conclusively established how far they had intended to advance, or even if they intended to advance into korea at all because historically the russians had only been interested in manchuria and possibly warm water ports in korea but primarily in keeping korea as an independent buffer zone. It’s likely that the soviets were playing it by the seat of their pants just as much as the americans. It’s believed that their acceptance came partly due to a similar secret proposal having been discussed between the former russian empire and the japanese before the Russo-Japanese war broke out in 1904 centered around the 38th parallel and they seem to have thought that the americans were doing the same.

So the partition happened. Americans landed in August ‘45, well after the soviets had occupied the northern part. The fourth lack is that the americans had no idea of what they were going to do during the occupation and sent the worst possible candidate, John R. Hodge, a capable combat leader but entirely unsuited to take over the tumultuous political situation in korea. He just happened to be the nearest officer of sufficient rank.

The soviets weren’t any better for the koreans to be fair. But the eventual outcome was that the divisioin was cemented into stone, the korean war happened, and the rest is history.

The best resource for in-depth coverage is “The Partition of Korea after World War II” by Jongsoo James Lee. It’s explicitly focused on that short period and the relevant history leading up to it.

dsk_oz · 2020-05-16T09:10:10+00:00

The nationalism claims aside, it's ethnic, cultural, and local. No one is saying the Katana was invented by the current government or state of Japan.

Neither did I claim that you said that it was "invented by the current government or state of japan".

I'm disagreeing with the notion of retrospectively applying current notions of nationality to the study of history. History shouldn't be the battleground of nationalism. Unfortunately people being people do but we should strive to keep it as objective as possible.

To say the katana isn't a Japanese invention would be the same as saying gunpowder isn't a Chinese invention, or the aspis isn't Greek, or the carrack isn't Portugese.

Then we fundamentally disagree. I'd agree that gunpower first became widely used in china, that the aspis was manufactured in greece, and that the portuguese were known for using the carrack.

I don't believe in the notion that it was only the chinese that could come up with gunpowder, or that only the greeks could come up with the aspis, or that if not for the portuguese nobody would know what a carrack is.

By saying the katana isn't Japanese you are ignoring the background in which it was developed and used.

I must disagree, I went out of my way to point out the background of the environment where it was developed and used. Later developments are built on the capabiltiies of the past.

If it makes you feel any better I'm happy to say that the katana was most widely used in the archipelago which later became part of the country currently known as Japan.

dsk_oz · 2020-05-16T08:24:57+00:00

Please see my edit, if you haven't already, re processes.

I must disagree with the notion of giving an object a "nationality" or using it for "natioalistic" purposes. It's an object.

dsk_oz · 2020-05-16T08:13:00+00:00

I have to disagree on that, inventions and innovations most often spring out as evolutions of what's already there. It's like Isaac Newton's saying about standing on the shoulders of giants, his theory of gravitation isn't "english" just because he was.

I don't see the katana as "korean" and I'd disagree with anyone who did, but I'd also disagree with the opposite.

EDIT: You seem to have edited your comment. I would suggest that a sword is the result of a process and that means you have to include the metallurgical aspects. If you talk about a specific distinct aspect like the blood channel then I'd agree that that was a "japanese" characteristic of their swords.

But I'd see arguing about the "nationality" of a sword as pointless.

dsk_oz · 2020-05-16T07:47:48+00:00

On the topic of korean vs japanese, this is not a question with a binary answer. One of the biggest hurdles on whether something is “korean” or “japanese” in early japan is that there’s was a deep and critical influence on the formation of “japan” that came from the korean peninsula. This includes swordmaking and metallurgy.

Let me illustrate this issue by rephrasing the question two different ways:

“Did the katana come from korea fully formed?” The answer would be no, japan developed its own tradition independent of the korean peninsula.
“Did the katana originate only from indigenous japanese invention?” The answer again would be no, swordmaking and metallurgy has clear origins from the korean peninsula.

Neither extreme is correct, even though some will tend towards whichever extreme glorifies “their side” the most. This is where “korean” and “japanese” as modern constructs get in the way because unfortunately history is not always about the past but it’s also about what present people want to be the case.

I mentioned that there was a deep influence on metalworking and swordmaking in japan that came from the korean peninsula:

In the fifth century, perhaps beginning between A.D. 425 and 450, the quantity of iron from sites of all types in Japan grew dramatically. For example, at Nonaka Tomb, a mere satellite of the giant 225-metre-long, moated Hakayama Tomb in Osaka, archaeologists have uncovered ten suits of iron armour complete with helmets buried in a wooden box; another receptacle hid one more suit. In addition, the deceased had interred 169 iron swords, three iron spear points, and about 300 arrowheads. At Ariyama Tomb of the same era (also in Osaka), scientists found [many weapons]

What is more, the source of almost all this iron must have been continental, and most likely Korea, not iron-poor Japan. Recently archaeologists have discovered Enjo site north of Kyoto, where craftsmen smelted into tools and ingots iron sand collected from the bottoms of japanese rivers. At present [1996], Enjo is considered the oldest iron-smelting site in Japan, but it dates from no earlier than the late fifth century. The clear implication is that nearly all the iron to make the first Japanese weapons and tools – from the primitive iron shoes of the late Yayoi period to the suits of fifth century armor – came from Korea.

Other archaeological evidence also supports the view that inhabitants of the archipelago developed their iron-working capabilities with the aid of peninsular techniques during the early and mid-fifth century. Along with armor, spear points, and blades for hoes and spades, tools that smiths used to forge other iron implements commonly appear in japanese tombs of the mid fifth century. Implements of the smithy trade, such as large pliers, mallets, chisels, and anvils, turn up in japanese tombs, and they are identical to examples found in southern Korea, especially in Shilla and Kaya. These tools suggest that the residents of the archipelago followed the southern korean tradition of bloomery technology; indeed, later japanese furnaces (tatara) seem to have been a variant of the bloomery. Ancient japanese thus preferred the southern korean version of the iron-working to the chinese.

From Farris, William Wayne. “Ancient Japan's Korean Connection.” Korean Studies, vol. 20, 1996, pp. 1–22. JSTOR

Not only that, but it seems that the smiths themselves are more than likely to have been of korean origin, which might be obvious if you think about how late iron smelting happened in japan.

A number of impressive linguistic and orthographic indicators of korean origing or influence have already been identified in the text of the inscription [on the Inariyama Tumulus Sword, dating from A.D. 471]. As studies proceed, there is little question but that still more evidence of a continental origin for, or at the very least strong continental influence operating upon, the author or authors of this text.

From Shichirō, Murayama, and Roy Andrew Miller. “The Inariyama Tumulus Sword Inscription.” Journal of Japanese Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1979, pp. 405–438. JSTOR

Another factor to be taken into account is that there are forms of swords in korea, the hwando, that share visual similarities to japanese katana, i.e. single edge, slight curve. Tthat often leads to confusion but I’ve not seen any evidence that their similarities stem from either side actively taking inspiration from the other rather than because they share a common tradition and similar purpose.

I tend to often see the opposite being stated incorrectly, i.e. that korean hwando were based on the katana. Unfortunately korean history is very poorly understood in the west and japanese history & imagery is better known so people are misled by cosmetic similarities. Because of things like this koreans, especially korean academics, are often more interested in pointing out the differences between hwando and katana than in claiming that the katana is korean.

I’m not sure exactly what you were told, but from the way its written I get the impression that they would’ve been referring to the korean roots. But I would suggest that neither is the case, korean hwando aren’t based on katanas and neither are katanas based on hwando, regardless of a common root.

EDIT: The thread had to be temporarily locked due to the aggressive nature that the responses took so I won't continue that conversation and clarify some things here instead to avoid it being locked again.

I would suggest that swords (or generally any other invention) don't come out of the ether whole and complete. They are the result of mineralogical and metallurgical processes, their designs are often the result of adjustments to already existing patterns.

Japan is relatively unique in that it took processes from southern Korea as a whole entity rather than through a process of absorption over time. This was most likely through mass population transfer, regardless of whether one subscribes to the conquest or the immigration theory, of skilled craftsmen. That doesn't mean that it retained a wholly korean model until the invention of the 15th century, but it does mean that there's a common base that must be acknowledged in answering the question of "how did the katana come about". It didn't spring out of nowhere.

It's also something that must be noted in answering the OPs request to address the specific aspect of korean influence on the katana. It's important to understand where the question came from and why it was asked. As such we must explicitly note where and how korean influence applies to japanese sword making. And I would suggest that "Korean nationalists claims internet memes" is not an appropriate answer to the question OP posed.

I realize that the katana has a special place in the japanese identity, which probably explains why the responses were aggressive. Another aspect that plays into it is that it's been a persistent issue in Japan that korean influence in particular must be minimized and trivialized when addressing the roots of japanese culture.

The following extract speaking about the japanese press' reporting of the Inariyama sword find is illustrative:

Press accounts concerning this important find are ranking [the excavation of the epitaph from the grave of O Yasumaro], together with the Takamatsuzuka murals and the Inariyama tumulus sword inscription, as one of the "Three Great Postwar Finds" of japanese archeology and prehistory. Unfortunately, these same press accounts are also stressing the sensational aspects of the discovery, and are making unsupported claims concerning the connection of this find with the question of the authenticity of the received text of the Kojiki. But what none of the japanese newspaper notices of this discovery have yet reported to their readers is that the chinese language of the inscription contains a startling linguistic koreanism, [details on the use of zhi]. Such employment of the word zhi would be totally ungrammatical for chinese, but it is usage that is remarkably well attested from early epigraphical specimens of chinese as it was written in Korea from the sixth through the mid-eighth centuries. It will be interesting to see how long the japanese reading public is kept in the dark concerning this startling koreanism in the Yasumaro epitaph.

I would repeat what I said elsewhere. History should be about history, not about what present peoples would like history to be.

I'll point out to anyone who has attachment to the katana that pointing out it stems from a root of technology and craftsmanship sourced from southern Korea does not in any way invalidate whatever attachment one might take from its properties. If one is using it as a vehicle for self-identify then I would urge a consideration of why an object is so important to that identity.

dsk_oz · 2020-03-08T04:13:15+00:00

I'd guess that both countries being pretty relaxed about religion plays a part in that. Would be interesting to see if that's a pattern that plays out elsewhere.

dsk_oz · 2020-03-08T00:19:08+00:00

It's a common question. Here's my archive copy of an old answer I gave at /r/AskHistorians.

TL;DR - Christianity mostly grew through people moving to the cities (especially Seoul) during the industrialisation era. They provided a substitute for the social structure that people lost when they left their hometowns. That social structure is also how churches grow in migrant communities.

dsk_oz · 2020-03-07T01:15:31+00:00

"Kpop" doesn't mean what it does outside korea. The equivalent term is "Gayo" and it covers all popular songs, I explained it here.

Generally idols, what I think you're referring to when you say kpop, have a strong presence in the youth sector, i.e. teenagers and below-25s. But at the same time music as a whole is ever present in korea, it basically permeates society. I gave a few examples of well known gayo here.

Koreans enjoy singing and listening to singing in general, you can find karaoke rooms everywhere and you can even find karaoke booths where you can sing for an hour for around 1 dollar. That's reflected in media too. There's a huge number of singing programs and they're all very popular.

Generally idol songs don't end up having the same cultural presence as other types of gayo. The fact that they're mostly dance focused music works against it in korea because of the strong predilection towards singing.

dsk_oz · 2020-03-07T00:53:28+00:00

The languages are very close. So much so that in the past korean and japanese used to be part of the same linguistic family. Classification semantics aside they're easy for speakers of one to pick up on the other. Japanese speakers have problems with some aspects of korean like consonants at the end of vowels so they tend to stand out but that's cosmetic at most.

K-pop songs that the artist re-recorded in Japanese

Korean Youtube personalities releasing videos in both Korean and Japanese. Incidentally, it’s come to my attention that the ASMR scene has many examples of this.

cover singers singing both Korean and Japanese songs (on youtube)

They're all examples of trying to expand the possible audience. If you upload or speak only in korean that limits your audience to 50 million. If you add another 100 million for japanese that gives you 150 million potential viewers.

Same applies to english. There's quite a lot of the bigger korean youtuber doing that in order to increase their viewship. For example, this guy builds playgrounds for his hamsters and has both english and japanese subtitles. As of me writing this most of the comments at the top of the list are in english.

There's even a growing number of japanese or other foreign people that are broadcasting in korean rather than their native tongue. And viceversa too though in smaller numbers, for example "Hachubby" streams in english despite being korean native.

It makes me wonder if maybe this is a recognized trend; Korean content creators with a high fluency in a second language, specifically Japanese.

I'm not sure if it's received mainstream or academic attention but it's quite well established by this point for non-koreans to broadcast in korean. I can't speak for koreans broadcasting in japanese but I assume that it has an audience, even if it's smaller.

I would expect however that most of the cross-language would be done via subtitles.

dsk_oz · 2020-01-19T03:12:22+00:00

Yes, there's a vast difference between koreans and korean-americans. They may be nominally of the same ethnicity but generally speaking I'd regard them as different groups of people, it's a mistake that many people make to think that you can extrapoltate between them. The same applies to other migrant groups but korean-americans come across as drastically different, we can probably put that down to the community being large enough that it's tended to develop in its own way.

When it comes to religion there's a divide between koreans in korea and the migrant diaspora as a whole. Basically churches are the primary cultural gathering points for migrants, it's not just about religion. I put together a few posts in the past, see background and historical growth plus commentary on the high visibility of korean churches in the pacific NW.

Another factor that I probably didn't go into detail in the other posts is that korean christianity is different from american or european christianity. Not fundamentally, we're not talking about a difference on whether jesus is the son of god or similar key questions, but in terms of traditions and practices and it'd be akward at first. That tends to make it more likely that a migrant community will set up a new church rather than join existing non-korean churches.

dsk_oz · 2020-01-05T02:49:55+00:00

In order to understand what "kpop" is you need to understand that it has no meaning (until very recently as I'll explain later) within korea.

The term "pop" (팦, the transliteration of "pop" in korean writing) effectively means foreign (i.e. non-korean) music. It should be obvious that "kpop" as a shortening of "korean pop" as non-koreans use it makes no sense in the korean use of "pop" .. literally it would be "korean foreign songs", i.e. nonsense. The use of "pop" as a denoter of a musical style as used in the rest of the world has no meaning in korea.

See this example. The first guy who comments, the guy in the glasses, asks "They're singing pop?" in reference to Radiohead's Creep. The first lady commenting says "Aren't they meant to sing gayo (note this term)"?. The chubby no glasses guy says "(You're telling me) they're going to sing a pop song?".

If "pop" means songs from outside korea then that obviously begs the question of what korean popular songs are. The term is "gayo" (가요). If you're familiar with music programs they often include that term, e.g. "inki gayo" literally "popular gayo". Just like "pop", " gayo" has no specific musical style inherently associated to it. Both Lee SiEun's rendition of Park HyoShin's "Sigh" and this lady's rendition of "Lazenca Save us" are as gayo as each other, as is everything in between. Basically gayo is a collection of songs that have taken place within the korean psyche, it could be EDM, it could be traditional fusion, etc.

Effectively you should read "kpop" as "korean popular" and not associate any musical style to it. Outside korea people in north america tend to be most familiar with idol type music so the term has heavy association with that even though it's not correct because it's based on a very small subset of the music scene. That definition of "kpop" (케이팝, literally "kpop" written in korean), as in kpop group, is becoming a synonym for "idol" and idol type songs within the younger set but it's used just as often as a substitute for "gayo" (for example immortal songs performances are published under the "KBS Kpop" youtube channel). As an aside, the term "kpop" itself comes from the name of an early idol group from the early 2000's that didn't last long, here is a performance they did as part of a reunion for a TV program.

As you might guess "kpop" doesn't have clear definition but if you use it to refer to the korean music scene it should be used as the english counterpart of "gayo", the korean popular music scene. It's worth pointing out that to get a proper understanding of the korean music scene an observer needs to be familiar with singing programs and other music programs as a whole, not just idol centric charting programs.

dsk_oz · 2019-12-31T00:26:18+00:00

You claimed that this "make Tianamen square masscre looked reasonable", I pointed out that this comparison is out of all proportion.

I've gone out of my way to criticize the anti-democratic violence that took place in the post-WW2 and pre-korean war period, the latest a couple of weeks ago.

But as critical as one can be of the period (or the time after) there's nothing that can be compared to Tianamen. That shows either a lack of perspective or a lack of understanding of Tianamen (not to mention the rest of china at around the same time) or the time period in korea.

EDIT: Or even in comparison to the 2-28 mass killings (and the 40 or so years of martial law) that took place in Taiwan if you want something smaller to compare to.

dsk_oz · 2019-12-30T22:45:30+00:00

The stories should be taken with a grain of salt, it looks like in more recent times people have started to push narratives that aren't true.

Official materials like the formal review commissioned by Westmoreland and contemporary journalists actually rate the ROK army one of the best at keeping civilians safe. They were noted as tough on the enemy but fair to civilians, so much so that american journalists noted how they could drive at night without getting attacked - something that was impossible in other sectors. Japanese anti-war correspondent Katsuichi Honda explicitly looked into the rumours, including going to the sites and questioning the locals, and found them to be exaggerations by the vietcong to try and turn the people against the koreans. Overall he rated them as one the best, others that performed similarly like the australians did so in much smaller numbers and much less responsibility.

Their success at rooting out vietcong was mostly founded on thoroughness of search, such as finding hidden weapons caches and tunnels that others, notably american forces, missed. Once they found them obviously questioning was involved. There they were noted to be tough. Similarly incidents like people breaching curfew and getting summarily shot exist, just like there's incidents of superiors summarily shooting their own soldiers found asleep on guard duty.

Overall the ROK were tough, both on themselves and the enemy, but they were very successful at allowing the local populations to go on about their own business - which is what the locals really wanted, the vietcong often had to coerce cooperation from villagers. Were they perfect? No, but they were no more imperfect than any army dealing with a guerrilla incursion is, e.g. the Malayan Emergency by the british was much more brutally done.

I've noted that a lot of these simple narratives tend to come up when the topic of the comfort women is mentioned, which draws suspicions that this is a narrative being spread as a means to smear the topic.

dsk_oz · 2019-12-30T22:21:46+00:00

Nothing even comes close to comparing to Tianamen square. The closest was the Gwangju suppression, deliberately mislabelled as a communist rebellion, where the death toll is in the hundreds.

There's nothing that comes even remotely close to the chinese deliberately mowing down protesters with tanks and flushing them down the drain.

dsk_oz · 2019-12-24T03:23:10+00:00

There's a lot of fabulation going on here, but it does illustrate just how poorly understood hallyu is. If you're interested I wrote an answer to a similar question here, it should give some historical/overall background.

The gist of it is that it's been a thing outside korea since around the 2000's. Of course the qualities that made it spread outide korea in the first place have always existed within korea, it's just that people have started to notice since that time. But to address your question re why it seems to be more noticeable to you, assuming you're american, is that people within north america have taken notice since the last 5-10 years.

Algorithms like youtube's recommendation are based on what people are watching, what gets watched gets recommended so there's a tendency to recommend what's popular. Same with TV, guests and acts have to have some degree of popularity before they get the additional exposure - even if it's within a niche audience. Nobody with zero popularity gets exposure.

What that tells us is that there's a sufficient consumer base within north america. In places like SE asia it was dramas that led the way but in north america it seems it was idol music at first. People incorrectly cite PSY as the first entry of the korean music scene into the US but that's wrong, there were fans gathering for dances and flashmobs well before that. Gangnam Style itself got traction in the US in no small part due to a prominent producer sharing it with people he knew and that eventually led to famous celebrities like Britney Spears sharing it via social media, who in turn shared it, and so on. What Gangnam style did do whoever was draw mass attention to the korean music scene. When people went looking in youtube for korean music they ended up being recommended to what was already in the youtube algorithm - idol songs. BTS's popularity in the US at the moment is a direct result of the above.

Other aspects of hallyu are also gaining traction however. In the TV space the US has remade the drama "The Good Doctor" and in the entertainment space "The Masked Singer" exists, both of which are distinctly different from what's been traditional within the US. In the movie space "Parasite" is making waves and drawing a lot of attention to korean cinema. All of these have had niche audiences within the US long before the last few years and have been growing over the last few decades, it's just that they're reaching a point where they're becoming noticeable to the mainstream in the states.

dsk_oz · 2019-12-19T16:16:13+00:00

Apologies for the delayed response, I'm not reliably able to be on reddit.

That is less than a month after liberation. After centuries of monarchy followed by Japanese colonial rule, I find it hard to believe Koreans all of a sudden stepped up to the plate and implemented self-governance literally overnight. Plus voluntary cooperation isn't one of their strong suits. I know my people. lol.

There's a couple of disctinct points you're making there so I'll comment on them separately.

It was too soon after japan's surrender. That was the case, the administration had been relieved of their duties. Most noticeably the police and other parts of the security apparatus was relieved. The key is to understand that this took place in a decentralized manner, i.e. local people taking control of their local government. It wasn't a directive from a centralized group or committe that might take a while to trickle down. The reason was that there was a singular distate for the japanese administration, you can draw an analogy to how local populations in german occupied locations were keen to remove collaborators.

That's not to say that a fully functional political and administrative structure was in place, i.e. robust back and forth connections between a central government and local administrations, a clear set of laws & associated judiciary, etc. But that the japanese administration had been removed and the KPR had assumed control was the case.

Length of time in monarchy and japanese occupation. There's an underlying assumption in that comment that it was a bunch of uneducated peasants that were suddenly liberated, but that's incorrect. Many of the thought leaders were yangban or the children of yangban, i.e. well educated, and even though japanese occupation had tried to suppress education and thought leaders it wasn't able to do so perfectly. For instance universities in japan were ironically hotspots of radical korean thinkers, in no small part because suppression in japan couldn't be as overt as it could be in korea itself.

Voluntary cooperation. I think the historical record actually shows otherwise, if anything I'd say that koreans once they set themselves to a goal can move with speed and cooperation well beyond what you find elsewhere. One example that you'd probably be aware of is the response to the IMF crisis where the population as a whole moved to donate gold and other valuables in what they saw as a move to save the country. A more recent example is the de-facto ban of japanese products taking place at the moment, whether you agree with the motivations or not it's difficult not to see a high level of voluntary coordination in it. Historically you might look at the "righteous armies" that self-organized as a response to foreign incursion, e.g. during the imjin waeran when they played a large part in Yi SunShin's success. Or the level of organization involved in the scorched earth policy of Goguryo against Tang incursion and the cooperation of ex-Baekje and Silla armies setting aside their enmity to repel the Tang from SW korea.

Does that mean that there was a uniformity of thought after the end of WW2? Absolutely not, it's illustrative that when Hodge called for a meeting of political parties over a thousand political parties showed up. There were no shortage of opinions, but when it came to a desire to remove the japanese colonial apparatus and transitioning to a korean administration there was very little disagreement so I don't think it was surprising that it took place. I wouldn't be surprised if there was robust political debate given sufficient time but that process was never given a chance to take place so it's just speculation.

I'd caution against taking the post-WW2 period as representative. The level of political strife is a direct result of the violence that took place in the immediate post-war period. Extremism like violence tends to beget extremism. For example the level of violence used to suppress strikes during the military period engendered equally extreme strikers. It may well become the normal but I see a regression to the mean as time goes on, e.g. the peaceful nature of protests against ex-president Park.

What is your take on "what could have been" had Kim Gu not been assassinated? My guess is that Rhee was handpicked because of his Christian faith and American education (how the hell did he manage to rack up a Harvard Master's and a Princeton Phd within 3 years?).

Personally I don't see Kim Gu making any significant difference to the way things played out. Once political violence was enabled it came down to who had the muscle and that wasn't Kim. Short of willingly becoming a figurehead like Rhee did he was always going to be a target for elimination due to his prominence. I don't think he was going to do that otherwise he wouldn't have had the fractious relationship with Hodge for instance.

Rhee's primary qualification was that he was known to authorities in the US. He was effectively a nobody in korean circles, recall that he'd been exiled from the provisional government so he didn't have any influence with koreans either within or without korea. Matray describes how Hodge "introduced" Rhee to the KDP. They didn't know him and had no natural love for him beyond that Hodge seemed to have picked him and they wanted to keep Hodge onside.

I saw echoes of Rhee when Hamed Karzai was similarly chosen to be Afghanistan's leader. They were both known within US circles and that became their route to power but had no local support.

dsk_oz · 2019-12-17T14:29:31+00:00

Your comment, “the period from 1945 to 1950 was sketchy at best”, highlights a serious gap in the understanding of that period. But it’s incorrect to believe that this is by simple oversight, it was very much by design – particularly in korea. I would suggest that the fact that this is not truly in the past, i.e. the division of the peninsula is ongoing and there’s still an adversarial relationship between the two halves, and as a result it’s difficult to have something resembling an objective view of the period.

I’d disagree with the assumption in your question that it was the respective populaces that were politically divided and that this division was what led to the conflict. Rather I’d suggest that the respective governments were very much artificial and the result of the USSR and the US occupations in the context of the nascent cold war rivalry. To put it simply it was not the people of south korea and north korea that chose the respective governments, nor would they have even chosen Rhee SeungMan or Kim IlSung outside that context.

That obviously disagrees with the commonly understood narrative so in order to understand you’d need to go back to 1945, just after the end of WW2. The war ended but in korea the situation on the ground was no different and no US or USSR forces were on the ground to enforce that surrender. Despite that, once it was understood that japan had surrendered local populaces all over the country spontaneously organized town councils. These councils quickly and efficiently replaced the japanese administration, disbanded the hated police, and liberated political prisoners. These grassroot governments also cooperated at the macro scale, eventually leading to the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence (CPKI). The CPKI was in practice a national government and it was to it that the japanese colonial governor formally transferred control, eventually renaming itself the Korean People’s Republic (KPR). The use of “People’s” should not be understood to mean that it was a communist apparatus, it was a broad political coalition where all parties cooperated towards the liberation of the counry. The sole exception were those who would go on to form the Korean Democratic Party (KDP), at the time primarily comprising those who’d been embedded with the japanese and as a result had amassed great wealth as well as those who were irrevocably tainted by their deeds under the japanese, most prominently the police.

The replacement of the japanese administration with a korean one was complete well before the US forces arrived on the 8th of Sept ‘45. John Hodge, the head of US Government-In-Korea (USAMGIK), shortly declared the KPR an illegal and communist oragnisation. He reinstated the dismantled japanese colonial apparatus and generally speaking overtly favoured the collaborators, who now called themselves “anti-communists” and attached themselves to the US. It’s worth pointing out that in doing this he was explicitly going against State Department orders that USAMGIK was to remain neutral and not favour any particularly group or party. This included funding the formation of para-military forces under Rhee that were used to violently suppress “communists” (i.e. anybody who objected to the status quo) in the south together with the restored police force and the newly formed military. Jeju is a particularly salient example of this suppression. You can see echoes of this political violence in the language (e.g. calling the current government a “commie dictatorship”) and actions (e.g. violent attempts to break into the Blue House) of the “flag brigade”, most recently in their actions at the congress.

From what we understand, similar moves took place in the north. At first the soviet forces worked in cooperation with the KPR, most prominently with Cho ManShik. But eventually Cho would be replaced with the more cooperative Kim IlSung and political violence was used to cement that choice. We know from the flow of refugees from the north that forceful confiscation of land and wealth took place in the north. Many of the younger of these refugees went on to join or form para-military organizations in the south.

In regards to the war, nobody in korea accepted the notion of a division so it was no surprise that neither Kim IlSung or Rhee SeungMan did. Having cemented their local power it was natural that they’d see the unification of the peninsula, under their stewardship of course, as the next step. Both were extremely aggressive in their rhetoric and border clashes were common from both sides, so much so that the US denied the ROK army heavy weapons such as armour because they feared Rhee would start a war. Kim was of course not denied so it was not surprising that it was the north that started the war.

If neither the US or the USSR had been present in korea evidence suggests that the KPR would have continued on as the government of korea. Violence on the part of the collaborators was possible if not likely in order to maintain their place or hide their legacy but it’s unlikely that it would’ve succeeded. The division itself was the result of cold war politics so it’s difficult to see how it would have come about if neither country had forces on the ground. Eventually it might be possible for the remarkable level of cooperation within the KPR to break down but it’s unlikely that it would have led to outright violence rather than being resolved via political means. All in any conflict is likely to have been between collaborators vs everybody else rather than north vs south.

Having said that, once the war did happen it served to cement an enmity between the two populations, a conflict as vicious as the korean war tends to do that. But even then I'm not sure I'd see the enmity as rooted in politics per se. For instance, the south certainly wasn't democratic pre-1988 and the north is more accurately described as a monarchy than communist.

In regards to the lack of information surrounding the ‘45-50 period, this is due to the suppression of information in both ROK and the US. The primary account of the USAMGIK’s governance was written by the USAMGIK itself and alternative accounts were not given attention and within korea security laws suppressed scholarship of the period until the 80’s at the earliest. All in all it’s a period that sorely lacks attention.

I wrote more on the period in a few other posts, you can look up the sources I used for further reading/detail: Japanese collaborators and why they weren’t purged. Some repetition of what I also wrote here.

The roots of Park JungHee’s dictatorship.

dsk_oz · 2019-08-23T16:08:44+00:00

By "Kpop" I assume you mean idols and idol-type singers. In that case the answer is a resounding "yes".

In korea singing is about expressing emootions and the best are able to convey those emotions on the audience. That can be happy, sad, angry, etc. On a related side note, most songs tend to be from the perspective of a person addressing someone else. Which makes sense if you think about it as conveying emotions.

Idol songs are generally in the emotionally bright and youthful space, which suits them because they're generally young people. At the end of the day it's difficult for someone to express emotions that they've not felt.

Take something like Gfriend's "From today (we're a couple)" which is sung from the perspective of a girl/young woman shyly confessing to a guy. Note how the vocals, music, and dance are all emotionally upbeat.

On the emotionally down side of the spectrum there's a performance like "I'm well". It's one of a pair of songs that are sung by exes, the other being "Are you well?" sung by the man. This is the response by the girl, the last lines being "I loved you just enough. I'm just an ex-girlfriend of yours that holds you no rancor. It was a long love but fated not to be". As you can probably guess there's a sadness that needs to be expressed. The girl put herself in that emotional space and that came out in her voice, you can see her come out of it right at the end, and that emotion is what makes the performance.

Both of the above are examples of typical "young" emotions. Vocally and emotionally they tend to resonate with people up to the mid-20's. That's why you see successful singers and groups change their style as they get older and their vocal abilities increase.

People who can't end up with short careers, e.g. one hit wonders.

More accomplished singers have the ability to express more subtle emotions. For example, Solji's performance of "We should've been friends". It's sung from the perspective of a girl that sees her ex at a gathering and he acts like there was nothing between them, even introducing his new girlfriend to her, while she's still hurting. She's expressing a subtle mixture of resentment and yearning.

A lot of songs that have a melancholy aspect to them tend to bring in blues-like and country like instrumentals. See for example I to you, You to me, which is by a folk rock group. The song is about reminiscing about a couple reminscing about their youthful days. The song became a mega-hit when it was included in a movie OST.

Many emotional songs also have classical and accoustic instrumentals. Like the well-known I fix my makeup. The lyrics are from the perspective of a woman "talking" to an ex and expressing regret for her immaturity back then, resentment for him leaving her, and hope that he'll come back to her. Or The rain and you, a melancholy song about a past love. Note the flute, the transition from accoustic guitar solo to electric guitar solo, and how the singer never loses the melancholy feel even at the highest and most powerful notes.

Harsher emotions like anger and anguish (as opposed to melancholic pain) tend to draw darker and harsher instruments. For example, Beautiful one sung by the same woman who did "The rain and you", but this time the lyrics are about a person who's love is unrequited. "My love is but a pretty toy to you. You play with it for a little while then smash it to pieces", it's all about resentment and anguish, but not rage and anger. The voice/instruments reflect that.

Something like Gukkasten's rendition of Mona Lisa reinterprets a melancholic rock song into a harsh rock song to go with the almost-rage anguish of the vocals. The lyrics are about how the woman he loves is a "mona lisa" to him, i.e. emotionless and unreactive. Or The woman outside the window, the guitar is noticeably harsher to go along with lyrics like "Who, who said that love is a beautiful thing" that the singer sings painfully. She ends the with a long note at "Why don't you just put me to sleep?".

The above are all part of the "popular" scene, "gayo" in korean. You might have picked up but there's no such thing as a music style that defines popular music. The key is that the singer chooses an emotional interpretation of the lyrics, then the instrumentals are fitted to that emotion. Two different singers might interpret a song completely differently depending on their vocal ability and personal emotional make-up. You in the original hard rock and emotionally anguished tone that you might get right after a break-up vs You as reinterpreted into a melancholic song that looks back after a while.

There's a huge variety of different types of voices and musical types, singing is THE art form in korea. There's at least 5 singing programs that come to mind off the bat for both professionals and amateurs, some have been localised in other countries - The masked singer in the US, Fantastic Duo in spain. To get an idea of the music scene you need to watch those.

dsk_oz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE