- P-ISSN0023-3900
- E-ISSN2733-9343
- A&HCI, SCOPUS, KCI
ISSN : 0023-3900
Vol.56 No.4
Abstract
In August of 1910, the Japanese Empire annexed the Korean Empire (Daehan Jeguk 大韓帝國; also known as the Great Han Empire), the culmination of a step-by-step seizure of Korea’s national sovereignty by means of a military force that was used starting from the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905). In this process, the Japanese Empire coerced five treaties from Korea: (1) Japan–Korea Protocol (February 23, 1904); (2) 1st Japan–Korea Agreement (August 22, 1904); (3) 2nd Japan–Korea Agreement, or Eulsa Treaty (November 17, 1905); (4) Japan–Korea Treaty of 1907 (July 24, 1907); and (5) Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty (August 29, 1910). It is well known that the above treaties were forced upon the Korean emperor and ministers through threats. This article examines how these treaties not only did not follow the standard form of treaties, but also how the Japanese government in fact prepared the documents that should rightly have been prepared by the Korean government. This article also focuses on how the Japanese government, in the translated English versions of the treaties, added words that were not present in the original treaties in order to convince the Western powers that the treaties were flawless in terms of their respect of national sovereignty. In addition, regarding Japan’s Treaty of Korean Annexation of 1910, this article shows how both the Korean and the Japanese versions not only used the same paper, but also the same strap and font. These facts constitute clear objective evidence that the annexation of Korea was done without the consent of the Korean Empire. The author expects this study to be utilized as evidence in proving the illegality of the Japanese annexation of Korea.
Abstract
According to reports published by South Korea’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (jinsil hwahae-reul wihan gwageosa josa wiwonhoe) in 2007–2009, the number of civilian victims in the Wando-gun area between 1945 and 1950 was around 1,000. Why did Wando-gun have so many casualties? Five reasons might be provided: (1) during colonial rule, the socialist independence movement was quite active in Wando- gun; (2) the police conducted left-wing mop-up operations in Wando-gun from 1945 to 1949; (3) during the Korean War, when police and the North Korean Army held their ground for six weeks in Wando-gun, mop-up operations of regional left-wing suspects occurred; (4) the North Korean Army, along with left-wing sympathizers, executed many people associated with the right-wing during their occupation of the island; and (5) after Wando-gun was restored to the South, police conducted strict interrogations of suspected traitors and executed many without trial. The case of Village A in Soan Island, where anti-Japanese nationalists were housed during the colonial period, can be regarded as representative. However, left-leaning sons and nephews of these nationalists were pursued and either executed or imprisoned by police. Those remaining during the Korean War were arrested and shot by police or had to flee to the mainland.
Abstract
This article aims to shed new light on the experimental changgeuk Medea with reference to the concept of transcultural/transhistorical practice. First, it argues that the changgeuk entitled Medea restructures the tenets of Greek tragedy while respecting both the original Greek narrative and Korean historical/cultural mentality. Second, it shows how the changgeuk Medea creatively reimagines performance mode through the mixing of two theatrical genres. Third, it highlights the way in which Medea instrumentalizes the history of East Asian performance art. Fourth, it argues that Medea is the outcome of a harmonious conceptual collaboration between Greek pathos, the so-called han of pansori, and the grotesque. Fifth, it hypothesizes that, at the culmination of the grotesque mood in Medea, the audience experiences a dramatic turn that is effective because it is in full accordance with the affective structure of pansori, a process defined herein as reflective catharsis. Finally, it calls for a reflective process of creative artistic innovation and globalizing modernization in Korean traditional theater in order to transcend simplistic Orientalism, wherein Asia is appropriated as merely an object of a fixed tradition or past.
Abstract
This article aims to make clear the nature of gobonji as a form of the Soviet second economy and to clarify its major constant and variable features as a kind of ethnic entrepreneurship. The most distinguishing characteristic of gobonji is that it was exclusively practiced by Koryo-saram (ethnic Koreans in Central Asia). Thus, one cannot deny the importance of gobonji in that practically all Soviet Koreans were engaged in it, or at least familiar with it, in one way or another during the Soviet period. Koreans acquired their first skills in entrepreneurship through gobonji, which created the initial material and financial basis for active integration into the market economy of the post-Soviet period. Gobonji also played a role in preserving the ethnic specificity of Koryo-saram, including elements of their traditional culture and native tongue.
Abstract
Copyright, a right exclusively granted to authors based on the originality of their work, is an essential institution for the establishment of modern literature. As a basic right guaranteeing the existence of professional writers of modern literature, copyright is quintessential to the status of authors as actors of modern literature. Writers in colonial Korea lacked a clear grasp of the modern yet discriminatory political systems of copyright and publication law. Under circumstances demanding self-censorship, writers were unable to actively demand copyright protection, as they lacked pride in their work and sold it at low prices as a way out of poverty. Under colonial rule, the importance of a writer’s economic rights through acknowledging the originality of their literary work was overlooked, while pangwon (publication right) was universally used by publishers as an exclusive sales right for publication. The social status of writers was established through social developments that secured revenue for authors, such as the establishment of standards for manuscript rates and restrictive royalty payments. However, since “copyright” was not politically, economically, or legally guaranteed throughout the development of modern literature, writers had to find solace in the idea that members of their profession inevitably had to endure poverty. Under colonial rule, the importance of a writer’s economic rights, enabled by acknowledging the originality of their literary work, was overlooked, while pangwon (publication right) was universally used by publishers as an exclusive right for publication. The social status of writers was established through social developments which secured revenue for authors, such as the establishment of standards for manuscript rates and for restrictive royalty payments. However, since “copyright” was not politically, economically, or legally guaranteed throughout the development of modern literature, writers had to find solace in the idea that the members of their profession inevitably had to endure poverty.