American Orientalism of Korea

American Orientalism in Korea
Author(s): Charles Kraus

Source: The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2015), pp. 147-165
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43898414
Accessed: 13-09-2019 19:49 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
American-East Asian Relations
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.132 on Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:49:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
léì JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS
THF KHIRNAL OF w
22 (2015) 147-165
AMERK AN-EAS I ASIAN
RELATIONS
BRILL brill.com/jaer
American Orientalism in Korea
Charles Kraus
The George Washington University and the Wilson Center
KrausCR@gmaii com
Abstract
People express and exercise power as much through words as through actions. Yet
scholars never have examined systematically how officials and others in the United
States actually talked and wrote about Korea, both north and south, during the momen-
tous interwar period. This article unearths crude depictions of the Korean people com-
mon in American writings from the 1940s and 1950s, arguing that this rhetoric created
and reinforced an unequal power relationship between the United States and Korea.
These negative discourses about Koreans, as expressions of American Orientalism, had
important implications for U.S. policy in Korea and for the post-war trajectory of devel-
opments on the entire Korean peninsula. They also have left a perceptible imprint on
English-language scholarship engaging in assessments of Korea ever since.
Keywords
u.s. -Korea relations - American Orientalism - Korean War - occupation of Korea -

South Korea - North Korea
The people that the United States was dealing with, Lieutenant General John
R. Hodge murmured in May 1946, were "very backward and unruly"1 Hodge, a
Many mentors and friends from The George Washington University and the Wilson Center
deserve recognition for stimulating this research, but the author above all thanks Daniel
Schwartz and Jisoo Kim for reading less than polished versions of this article. He also appre-
ciates how two anonymous reviewers for the Journal of American-East Asian Relations did not
shy away from asking the hard questions and thanks them for their critical suggestions.
1 "Memorandum of Meeting of Secretaries of State, War, and Navy," 22 May 1946, u. s . Department
of State, Foreign Relations of the United States [hereafter frus with appropriate year], 1946, The
Far East (Washington, dc: United States Government Printing Office, 1971), 8: 682.
© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2015 | DOI 10.1163/18765610-02202004
148 KRAUS
native of
Koreans. A
arrived in
military f
comments
gling to
Washingt
ner with
and reliab
adding up
people as
Hodge's r
exercise p
have syst
actually
momento
brought
u.s. -Kore
sentations
where.4 S
inequalit
United St
dynamic
immediate
2 On Lieute
War: The U
for Korea,
Matray, "H
17-38;
3 "Memorandum of Meeting of Secretaries of State, War, and Navy," 22 May 1946, p. 682.
4 Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 3. For works following this
tact in areas beyond the Korean peninsula, see, for example, Seth Jacobs, The Universe
Unraveling: American Foreign Policy in Cold War Laos (Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press,
2012); Douglas Little, American Orientalism : The United States and the Middle East since 1945
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002); Christina Klein, Cold War Orientalism:
Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003).
For one exception in the case of Korea, see Michael D. Shin, "Major Trends of Korean
Historiography in the us," Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies 3, no. 1 (2003): 151-75.
5 Jeremi Suri, "The Cold War, Decolonization, and Global Social Awakenings: Historical
Intersections," Cold War History 6, no. 3 (August 2006): 353.
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165
AMERICAN ORIENTALISM IN KOREA 149
Saiďs OrientialLsm is, of course, d

frustrated critics for decades now
how he succumbed to tunnel vision
host of colonial-era thinkers wh
scholarship, in addition to carica
horned into his theoretical framewo
legacy, but Orientalism as a conc

least, Orientalism reminds us tha
about the non-West have often
ideologically motivated."8 Moreove
calls attention to the "decisive link
ways in which the discursive repre
enced scholars and how scholars th
of colonial and/or official represen
even if many educated reader
Orientalism is still a useful tool fo
and applying in contexts Said neve
This article therefore brings Or
arguing that the crude depiction
introduced above - "backward,"
merely slips of the tongue voiced
not all American voices discus
Orientalist, Hodge's remarks we
entrenched attitudes and belief
(and scholars) in the years imme
6 See, for instance, Bernard Lewis, "The Q

11 (June 24, 1982): 49-56; Robert Irwin, D
(Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2006). F
see, among others, Ziad Elmarsafy,
Orientalism (New York: Palgrave Macmill
Said and the Unsaid (Seattle: Univers
"Orientalism: An Overview," Australian
partially responded to some of his cr
Criticism , B.J. Moore-Gilbert, Gareth S
1997), 126-44.
7 Edmund Burke in and David Prchaska
Politics (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
8 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, p. 3.
9 Ziad Elmarsafy and Anna Bernard, " O
Orientalism, p. 1.
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIA
150 KRAUS
They wer
ers develo
courses
implicati
entire Ko
The preju
familiar t
total dom
trenchan
authority
ished dep
derisive,
so than t
potential
As a pain
Democra
the Korea
This
typ
nascent
immatur
ers in the
sive form
"cultural
this sens
fied - even necessitated - the extensive involvement of the United States in
1 o Barbara Bush, Imperialism and Postcoloniallsm (New York: Pearson Longman, 2006).
11 X [George F. Kennan], "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," Foreign Affairs 25 (July 1947):
566-82.
12 Bruce Cumings, "The Assumptions Did It," in In Uncertain Times: American Foreign Policy
after the Berlin Wall and g/ii, Melvyn P. Leffler and Jeffrey W. Legro, eds. (Ithaca, ny:
Cornell University Press, 2011), 131-49. Cumings' arguments do not warrant wholesale
agreement. To be sure, the Korean War was a civil conflict, but the conflict also was deeply
entwined with international politics. Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin's approval of Kim II
Sung's war plan, for example, was a major turning point in the road leading to North
Korea's 25 June 1950 attack on South Korea. For an alternative perspective on the origins
of the Korean War which challenges many of Cumings' arguments, see William Stueck,
"Revisionism and the Korean War," The Journal of Conflict Studies 22, no. 1 (Spring 2002),
http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/365/576 (accessed 30 November
2014).
1 3 Bush, Imperialism and Postcolonialism, p. 146.
that country.14 In the discursive r

both Koreas were pawns, not agents,
In calling attention to the ways in
Korea, the author of this essay does
ments on past behaviors.15 The role
unsettled debate, with suspicious
become the captive of presentism.16
constantly changing contemporary c
nosed critiques of the distant past, ev
This article's examination of Americ
tion of - not judgment upon - the a
ticed in Korea in the 1940s and 1950
policy toward Korea.18 Some poli
informed by mentalities more so
Cold War.
As a corollary to demonstrating
the case of Korea suggests that Da
what we thought we knew about s
rule was distorted by the discursive
to countries that faced foreign occu
emerging body of scholarship is c
North Korea as a docile Soviet satelli
the field of Korean studies, includin
Sook Suh, Andrei Lankov, and pe
nearly identical assumptions about K
U.S. policymakers, thereby reinforc
1 4 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Eur

(Princeton, nj: Princeton University Pres
15 Elder Olson, "On Value Judgments in t
71-90.
16 Wulf Kansteiner, "Hayden White's Critique of the Writing of History" in Historiography :

Critical Concepts in Historical Studies , Robert M. Burns, ed. (New York: Routledge, 2006),
390-93.
17 Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The ' Objectivity Question' and the American Historical
Profession (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
18 Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War , Vol. 11 : The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947-
1950 (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1990).
19 Dane Kennedy, "Imperial History and Post-Colonial Theory," Journal of Imperial and
Commonwealth History 24, no. 3 (September 1996): 357.
152 KRAUS
articulate
Orientalis
downplay
sciously o
rial discou
fleshed ou
ern Kore
Interpret
unbound
observers
critique, A
Ranajit G
calls the p
of this ar
that are u
time and
though re
Hodge's p
public and
shaped th
only writ
early 1950
analysis o
at roughly
works, wh
same way
20 In his re
author's tex
Americans
ity." Whet
awaits furt
1945-1950:
21 See, for
Strategic H
22 Suri, "T
23 Richard
no. 3 (May
24 Ranajit
Guha and G
45-86.
of his policies. Finally, attention m

scholarly accounts that, despite ga
an empirical approach to the study
power relationship between Korean
intellectual foundations on which
tertiary realm have strengthened,
that Koreans did not possess agenc
Orientalism colored how u.s. lea
policy toward both Koreas during
when they gazed north that Amer
about Koreans. The discourse of th
Oon Kim has demonstrated convin
of the Korean peninsula into nor
occurred. H. Merrill Benninghoff, o
tioned in Korea in the postwar era,
he had little evidence about Soviet a
that "there is more than a probabi
northern Korea as they sovietized E
ful, in-depth studies of North Kore
the same conclusions that Benning
The longest and most authoritative
A Case Study in the Techniques of T
variety of North Korean source m
rogations) with officials and citize
arrive at a similar answer to the q
degree of success did the ussr exerc
Completing the study as participan
the authors stated emphatically tha
satellite regime of north Korea rem
2 5 Gregg A. Brazinsky, Nation Building

a Democracy (Chapel Hill: University of
26 Quoted in Gwang-Oon Kim, "The Mak
in Origins of North Korea's Juche : Colo
(Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2013), 6
27 u.s. Department of State, North K
(Washington, DC: u.s. Government Pr
declassified this study and made availab
its completion.
28 Ibid., p. 120.
154 KRAUS
Why was
to Gwang
in Korea d
of the Iro
alike/' wh
and other
North Ko
attemptin
as a puppe
self-gover
the Soviet
decoloniza
alleged th
ceptible t
Sung, "a r
the Soviet
of author
were large
to the US
Soviet Red
putting M
Technique
was what
In an eff
Korean hi
which No
his critici
29 Kim, "T
30 The u.s.
thing akin
Authentici
2004), 1. Fo
region toda
see Justin
Decolonizat
4 (Decembe
31 u.s. Depa
32 Ibid., p
33 Ibid., p
JOURNA
North Korea during the inte rwar

these beliefs. Not simply Cold War
was a convincing paradigm prim
and stereotypes of Koreans. Orie
stood developments in North Ko
milieu that the State Department p
Takeover. North Korea was not a s
crafted an ingenious strategy for
decline had made it fertile territor
to the authors, it was precisely th
lent Moscow the "advantage of nea
own brand of imperialism."34 Mor
the Research Mission furthermore
Korean culture throughout the

degree of sophistication and de
years it had become increasing
adapt to modern scientific and
50 years, the Koreans themselve
element into their traditional cul
The pre-modern nature of Korea t

domination. The report specifically
ety, especially its "emphasis on th
readily to modern technology," wh
sive victims to Moscow's expansio
Orientalism, in addition to the Co
which American policymakers sp
34 Ibid., p. 2.
35 Ibid., p. 109.
36 Ibid., p. 11.
37 For additional historical perspectiv
"Representing the Invisible: The Ame
unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Colum
'Barbarism'? Whose 'Treachery'? Race
Korea War of 1871," The Journal of Am
an elaboration on race and imperialism
Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour
Challenge of Racial Equality (New York
156 KRAUS
ways in w
denied th
States cha
course,"
because of
safeguard
United Sta
could train
Soviet Pre
Koreans re
for compl
Roosevelt
that "the
governme
As Ameri
tion unde
envisioned
1945, pate
within th
MacArthu
1945» he
independe
governm
Although
of foreign
words ex
United St
38 Final Te
Tehran 194
39 Memora
1944, F rus
United Stat
40 Franklin
Malta and Y
41 Minutes
and Tehran
42 General
frus, 1945
Governmen
JOURNA
Negative imagery of the Korean pe

U.S. occupation and Soviet- America
Korea stumbled during winter 1945
one of the most vitriolic voices w
1940s, was often the most explicit i
In 1946, for example, he issued a gr
have been the experts on Korea
Department" so poorly:
It certainly has not been anyon

since the war. I hope that it can b
here we are not dealing with w
early [s/c], poorly trained, and po
by 40 years of Jap control, who s
they like and dislike, who are def
and with whom it is almost impo
The terminology MacArthur used w

tones, but a particularly demeani
people did color it.44 MacArthur wa
unreasonable people. Hodge, the u. s
man on the ground in southern K
sized the political immaturity of
backward and unruly."45 It was p
informed how the United States bot
developed its own policy toward tha
Occasionally, American officials
Korea down to inherent racial cha
people. One u.s. political adviser i
United States would not be able to e
because the "politically immature
enced along oriental lines." Altho
of "oriental lines," the phrase point
43 General of the Army Douglas MacArth

FRUS, 1946, 8, pp. 629-30.
44 See also, John W. Dower, Embracing Def
W.W. Norton, 1999), 556-57.
45 Memorandum of Meeting of Secretarie
8, p. 682.
158 KRAUS
cultural
Soviets b
because t
dominatio
governm
because t
understa
George C
some prai
mate rega
towards h
These typ
forms of
"informe
and iden
American
socially c
limited K
sometim
How Am
the u.s. g
Korean n
assumpti
later fost
sula, and
Thus far
North Ko
upon the
now shift
duced in
ondary re
46 The Poli
FRUS, 194
1972), 6: 67
47 The Secr
ibid., p. 676.
48 Bush, Imperialism and Postcolonialism, p. 155.
49 Guha, "The Prose of Counter-Insurgency," pp. 59-71.
these books tacitly supported a

American officials, even as they c
ernment. Like the protagonists in t
ary realm coming under examina
was misguided only in method, no
Arguably the most representative
ary realm is the book Korea Today
George M. McCune wrote with Art
Korea.51 The main author - a Pyon
and a career Koreanist - produce
official u.s. government docume
from the d prk. Although McCune
Korea desk, his criticisms of u.s. p
of an embryonic McCarthyism,
United States had unwittingly m
international rivalries" in settling
ognized, and criticized, the pater
stating the nation "is still looked u
in Washington."53 His disapprov
stray far from the u.s. governmen
emphasis that North Korea was a "
formed with the Russian prototyp
Techniques of Takeover , what Mc
ways in which the Kremlin channe
by the Russians," he noted, "gave
more than nominal authority in th
icy proved to be even more ingeni
Korea as "a nominally independent
Coincidence alone, however, did
of Soviet control in North Korea w
50 William J. Lederer, and Eugene Burdic

51 George M. McCune and Arthur L.
University Press, 1950).
52 Ibid., p. 256.
53 George M. McCune, "Occupation Politic
1946): 37-
54 McCune and Grey, Korea Today , pp. 5-6.
55 Ibid., p. 173.
56 Ibid., p. 222.
160 KRAUS
agencies.
Technique
domination to what he believed were backwards elements of Korean culture.
He wrote, for example, that "though the Korea of today is modernized in
many essential respects," the Korean people "are little better prepared for
political responsibility in a modern world than they were in 1900."57 Marred
by tradition, the Koreans were "slow in adapting to the Western world," stuck
in a "long historical continuity" with a "firmly fixed" Korean culture, and trou-
bled by "factionalism," which was a historical "characteristic of Korean poli-
tics."58 Though probably not donned in sunglasses, McCune even channeled
General Hodge when he wrote how "the Korean independence movement
lacked leadership, unity, and a coherent program," which also "seemed to
reflect the political immaturity of the Korean people as a whole."59 Koreans,
moreover, had become conditioned to accept dictatorial and authoritarian
controls. "Because of the thirty-five years of Japanese domination," McCune
explained, Koreans had become "further accustomed ... to expect dictation
from above."60 Under these circumstances, he did not believe that "the
Korean as an individualist was inclined to be irresponsible" and could not be
trusted to "assume a mature or stable outlook."61 Rather, it was the troubled
condition of Korean culture that prevented the United States from easily or
successfully instituting a democratic government in southern Korea, while
these very same traits facilitated the rapid Soviet authoritarian takeover of
northern Korea.
David J. Dallin, a prolific, anti-Communist Russian living in exile in the

1940s, advanced a perspective similar to McCune's in his influential and widely
cited book Soviet Russia and the Far East "As if shadows could exercise free
will," he remarked sarcastically in describing the domestic leadership in north-
ern Korea. These "institutions and personalities ... are only figureheads, front-
ing for and manipulated by the occupation command."62 One might expect
that a "White" writer such as Dallin would harp intently on the Cold War
or, more specifically, the expansionist tendencies of the Soviet Union to
explain northern Korea's vulnerability to Moscow. But Dallin was, like McCune,
57 Ibid., p. 6.
58 Ibid., pp. 13-14.
59 Ibid., p. 28.
60 Ibid., p. 180.
61 Ibid.
62 David J. Dallin, Soviet Russia and the Far East (New Haven, ct: Yale Universit
286.
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015
especially convinced that Korea's c

to the Soviet Union, explaining how
had known no real political activi

extent illiterate, politically inar
rich a soil for large-scale politic
peasant regions of China.63
For Dallin, Korea was "no Finland."

McCune and Dallin were capable
policy, but they could not distance
postwar discourse regarding Kore
ondary realm were emblematic of A
reinforced the notion that Korea w
government. Even as these studie
gone askew, they explained Korea's
necessity for American intervention
realm identified.
In recent years, officials and sch

they talk and write about Korea, bu
English-language writers is dead? A
category for interpreting historical
tion now examines works about Nor
tinctive from the State Department
or McCune's Korea Today. Specifical
primary and second realms because
on empiricism, and the evidence th
these important distinctions, how
Techniques of Takeover and other u
still perceptible in the newer waves
that North Korea was a Soviet satell
lectual foundations on which this cl
unequal power relations between K
visible in the primary and secondar
Many scholars, for example, have t
ply reconfirm the assumptions and
63 Ibid., p. 258.
64 Guha, "The Prose of Counter-Insurgen
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN
162 KRAUS
Takeover
Formula f
case in po
was calle
Koreans
Andrei La
an especi
unequivoc
haps this
than to m
noting so
writings
different
nize," La
Like Máty
"for the
ment we
puppet m
To his cr
McCune
defects in
he fails t
ing. Lank
tions abo
about No
upon them
65 The auth
of a differ
66 Dae-Soo
North Kor
Haven, ct:
67 Andrei
(London: H
68 Andrei
of Hawai'i
Culture in
2008): 123-
69 Lankov,
70 Ibid., p
JOURNA
Korean people were only pawns, no

Although Lankov does not stigmat
as active participants in shaping th
This article's examinations of the
scholarship have made plain the
the English-language discourse sur
crude depictions of the Korean p
the 1940s and 1950s helped to crea
ship between the United States and
perversion of knowledge product
Perhaps most important, these n
sions of American Orientalism, sh
ars heretofore have not recogniz
postwar trajectory of events on th
Not all scholars - particularly t
exemplify the traits associated w
Charles Armstrong, Suzy Kim, and
revisited the postwar occupation e
standing in mind.71 For example
pages of captured North Korean do
assessment of North Korea's dev
that "despite the high degree of S
communist-oriented regime ... c
ately became 'indigenized'."72 W
Leninist regime in the dprk, Ko
and outcomes of Soviet policies a
the reordering of society and the
ined community. Suzy Kim has tak
pleting the first in depth study of
According to Kim, by approaching
tive of "the everyday life of local v
have orchestrated" or been solely
occurring in Korea north of the 3
retained considerable agency.73 Ot
7 1 Cumings, The Roaring of the Catar

72 Charles K. Armstrong, The North
University Press, 2003), 3.
73 Suzy Kim, Everyday Life in the Nor
University Press, 2013), 7.
164 KRAUS
likewise b
below the
Yet even
Orientalis
period, o
longer? I
provides a
the produ
through t
cise powe
American
structed b
imbalance
American
the Soviet Union dominated northern Korea and active involvement of
Americans in southern Korea was necessary. In the long-term, American
Orientalism also shaped how scholars working in the humanities and social
sciences have understood the two Koreas, and especially North Korea, for sev-
eral generations. Ironically, independence, autonomy, and agency - the very
characteristics that Americans could not recognize in the 1940s - have become
so integral to the North Korean regime that its leaders have turned them into
"instruments] of power" used to torment the country's citizens and to antago-
nize much of the outside world.76
Admittedly, this article may be guilty of perpetuating a problem particular
to postcolonial literature. In questioning the narratives Americans generated
about Korea, it probably ends up, in the words of Dane Kennedy, essentializing
"the West, a discursive practice no less distorting than the West's tendency to
essentialize the Orient."77 Many contemporary observers in fact did celebrate
Korean agency, and not all American commentators during the 1940s and 1950s
relied on racial and/or cultural determinism to analyze developments in
74 Brazinsky, Nation Building in South Korea.

75 M ichel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, Colin
Gordon, ed. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), 93.
76 Heonik Kwon and Byung-Ho Chung, North Korea : Beyond Charismatic Politics
(Lanham, md: Rowman & Littlefìeld Publishers, 2012), 15. See also, James F. Person,
"Solidarity and Self-Reliance: The Antinomies of North Korean Foreign Policy and
Juche Thought, 1953-1967," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The George Washington
University, 2013.
77 Kennedy, "Imperial History and Post-Colonial Theory," p. 353.
Korea.78 Yet, even at the risk of int

raphy, this essay's identification an
Korea has been necessary because sch
assumptions about Korea that s
explained the ways in which thes
power, have shaped subsequent ge
need to judge past thinking about
and political standards, but do nee
its legacies from the bodies of kn
today. Historians also must begin
American Orientalism in Korea.
78 Henry Chung, a stern anti-Communist Korean- American, did not engage in any self-
Orientalization in his hostile description of Soviet domination of North Korea. See Henry
Chung, The Russians Came to Korea (Washington, DC: The Korean Pacific Press, 1947)-
At the other end of the political spectrum, Anna Louise Strong spoke of Russian "influ-
ence," rejecting the notion of "domination." See Anna Louise Strong, In North Korea: First
Eye-Witness Report (New York: Soviet Russia Today, 1949) and her slightly different self-
published version, Inside North Korea: An Eye-Witness Report (Montrose, CA, 1951).

American Orientalism of Korea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Orientalism of Korea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Orientalism in Korea

Author(s): Charles Kraus

American Orientalism in Korea

u.s. -Korea relations - American Orientalism - Korean War - occupation of Korea -

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2015 | DOI 10.1163/18765610-02202004

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

Saiďs OrientialLsm is, of course, d

legacy, but Orientalism as a conc

6 See, for instance, Bernard Lewis, "The Q

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIA

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

that country.14 In the discursive r

1 4 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Eur

16 Wulf Kansteiner, "Hayden White's Critique of the Writing of History" in Historiography :

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

of his policies. Finally, attention m

2 5 Gregg A. Brazinsky, Nation Building

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIA

North Korea during the inte rwar

Korean culture throughout the

The pre-modern nature of Korea t

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIA

Negative imagery of the Korean pe

It certainly has not been anyon

The terminology MacArthur used w

43 General of the Army Douglas MacArth

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

these books tacitly supported a

50 William J. Lederer, and Eugene Burdic

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

David J. Dallin, a prolific, anti-Communist Russian living in exile in the

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015

especially convinced that Korea's c

had known no real political activi

For Dallin, Korea was "no Finland."

In recent years, officials and sch

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN

Korean people were only pawns, no

7 1 Cumings, The Roaring of the Catar

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIA

74 Brazinsky, Nation Building in South Korea.

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

Korea.78 Yet, even at the risk of int

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN-EAST ASIAN RELATIONS 22 (2015) 147-165

You might also like