East Asian countries have developed cultural nationalism in a very exclusive direction. South Korean netizuns are suspicious of the “cultural process”, especially against China, but in reality there is a big difference in how South Korea, China, Japan, and North Korea and Vietnam build “our ethnic culture.” do not have.
Illustration = Kim Dae Jung // The Hankyoreh Newspaper
The opening ceremony of the Beijing Winter Olympics the other day inspired the so-called “Hanbok debate” among some Korean netizens (net users). 56 Chinese minority representatives carried the Chinese Five-Star Red Flag together, and one woman who looked like a Chinese compatriot (Korean Chinese) wore clothes like Hanbok (Korean traditional clothing). I wore. In fact, it’s not surprising or “controversial.” At almost all official events in China where ethnic minorities appear, Chinese compatriots in Yanbian, one of the ethnic minorities, customarily wear hanbok. It’s not necessarily just China. Russian Koryo-saram always wear hanbok at every event to show off Russia’s character as a multi-ethnic nation. Brothers in the United States often do so. However, with the exception of neighboring countries such as China, there is no “hanbok debate” among Korean netizens in any country. If Hanbok appears somewhere in the world other than China, it is more likely that Korean netizens will think of it as a “national prestige”. However, when it appears in East Asian territorial nations, especially in China, the suspicion of “cultural process” or “distortion” arises immediately.
The reason is self-explanatory. Unlike Europe, North America or South America, the Arab region, etc., some kind of supranational comprehensive regional national alliance has not yet been established in East Asia. Moreover, there is not even a regional common language such as English in Europe and North America, Spanish in Latin America, Arabic in the Middle East and Russian in the former Soviet Union. The common language of pre-modern East Asia was Chinese, but in Korea these days, about 2 out of 10 college students can’t even write their names in Chinese. Here at the University of Oslo in Norway, when international students from China, South Korea and Japan meet each other, they usually talk in uncertain English. With the division of the Korean Peninsula, and the conflict between the North Korean-China alliance on the one hand and the Korea-US-Japan alliance on the other, there is really nothing that can be called an “East Asian community.” ..
Under these circumstances, East Asian countries have developed cultural nationalism in a very exclusive direction. It occupies a common past regional culture in a manner similar to “our ethnic culture,” and claims exclusive ownership of past history. South Korean netizuns are particularly suspicious of the “cultural process” against China, but in reality there is not much difference in the way South Korea, China, Japan, and North Korea and Vietnam build “our ethnic culture.” .. Its exclusivity and the non-historical “ethnicization” of past regional cultures are the same.
Let me give you some examples. Some conscientious Japanese scholars, including Western scholars, also seek the origin of the title of Japanese monarch, “Emperor,” from Taoism, which was originally introduced from China. It is said that Taoist deities such as the “Emperor Emperor” of ancient China were introduced to Japan and even influenced the title of the monarch. But can such a theory be introduced in Japanese school textbooks? The answer is clearer than looking at the fire.
Then what about the Republic of Korea? In connection with this “Hanbok debate,” President Yoon Suk-yeol, who has the power of the people, responded that “Goguryeo and Balhae are the proud and illustrious history of the Republic of Korea.” It is true that some of the Balhae migrants were absorbed into Goryeo and became part of the history of the Korean Peninsula, which continues to the Republic of Korea, but another Balhae migrant group also exists in Liao and Jin dynasties, and it is in history. Is it necessary to bother to eliminate the fact that it played an important role? In fact, the Goguryeo-Balhae culture was not only absorbed by the Korean Peninsula culture, but also affected the woman (Manchurian) who later founded the country, and built the foundation of the Tohoku (Manchurian) regional culture. Korean (and North Korean) textbooks usually attribute Goguryeo and Balhae exclusively to the history of the Korean Peninsula.
If so, Goguryeo is described as “China’s ethnic minority government” in Chinese government publications, and it also claims “ownership” for its history. It is unhistorical and unreasonable to apply the expression “minority” that came into Chinese in the 20th century to ancient history, but the Chinese government and government-owned intellectuals do not care. It is a projection of today’s nationalist desires in history.
In fact, the potential greatest disadvantage to such an exclusive nationalist feast is the very position of South Korea. South Korea’s trade dependence is much higher than China and Japan, or North Korea and Vietnam. And the most abundant diaspora in East Asia is from the Korean Peninsula. Geographically, the Korean Peninsula is located in the “middle” of the East Asian region. In such a situation, the quieter and more objective position of treating the past regional cultural heritage as a common heritage of all East Asian residents is more in line with South Korea’s “national interest” in the long-term and comprehensive sense. However, as the conflict between China and the United States intensified and disgust toward China erupted indiscriminately in South Korea, even politicians who wanted to get a “voter reaction” toward the presidential election bureau joined forces. The “Korean politics debate,” which has no positive meaning or need, was inflated as if it were a difficult one.
For example, on the 5th, a member of the People Power Party, who belongs to the Culture, Sports, Tourism Committee of the Diet, “strongly denounced” China’s “Culture, Northeast Project” without any concrete grounds in a statement. I made an amazing claim like this. Now, in Europe, Chinese people are proudly opening Korean restaurants, using the Korean wave to make money, and degrading the dignity of Korean food. According to this logic, Korean overseas compatriots who often run sushi restaurants in Oslo will have to go out of business voluntarily without selling “food from other countries”. It is shocking that such autistic nationalism is spoken in the Diet in the 21st century, which has become a developed country. On the other hand, the Democratic Party of Korea’s presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung also shouted “against the cultural process” and could not respond properly to this eruption of exclusivity, but rather just piggybacked on it.
It’s a shame. If politicians who should set an example of calmness and objectivity, inclusiveness and international sense to the public, join the nationalist frenzy, it will only make the situation worse. In fact, South Korea, the only East Asian country that has achieved democratization on its own, is the territorial nation that can best counter the regressive exclusivity of owning culture. My dream is to teach the history of the Korean Peninsula from the perspective of world history or regional history at each level school and university, instead of the history of a country named “Korean history” in Korea. Only by expanding the horizons to the entire East Asian region and the world can we correctly understand the past and present of the Korean Peninsula, where various cultures interacted and mixed with each other. How humorous would a happening like this “Hanbok debate” look to students taking such courses?
Pak Noja (Vladimir Tikhonov) Professor, Oslo National University, Korean Studies (Inquiries [email protected])
Translated by JS