Korea Old and New: A History [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

On to the book: This is a fascinating account of Korean history from ancient times up to the 1980's, a span of over 2000 years. Each chapter covers a different period, and the chapters share the same organization, describing the social, cultural, political, philosophical/religous, scholarly, and military aspects of the period in respective subsections. This makes it easy to later refer to previous chapters and compare different periods. Understandably, the level of detail provided increases along with the stability of the country.

The style and content changes noticeably though after the pre-Industrial Age chapters. The history up to this point is analagous to European medieval history with kings, queens, heroic warriors and devious power struggles to control the throne. However, as the 20th century dawned, Korea was overrun by Japan and roughly half a century of occupation ensued. From this point on, the book's strength is its account of modern Korea and the motivations of the Korean government. This is where accounts by foreign authors invariably fail and take on obvious biases based on the "official" information the Korean government and their own governments have dispensed. Having several Korean relatives both in the US and Korea, I should emphasize that this book's account of modern history is definitely politically liberal and populist. It presents a view of politics that is probably more agreeable to Korean university students and professors and less agreeable to older Korean generations with more conservative views.

As an end-to-end reading experience, I really enjoyed this book. I mention 'keep a notepad handy' in the title of this review, and I really do encourage that. You see, the only major problem I had with this book was that the ancient history would quickly become confusing due to the frequent use of similar names, particularly the names of various kings. Also, while I'm amazed at the balance made between depth and breadth to keep a complete history under a billion pages, some of the descriptions of important historical figures are regrettably short - too short to etch them into your memory. For these reasons, I seriously recommend keeping notes (or heck, use a spreadsheet if you really want to keep this stuff straight) about the major figures and events as you go along. I really, REALLY wish they had provided a summary timeline or at least a summary of the kings as an appendix, but no such luck. If you don't keep notes, you may wind up reading the whole thing, enjoying it immensely, but then being completely incapable of recalling correct names and dates. Hint- if you ever get a Korean history trivia question "which king did <blah>?", just guess King Tejo and you've got about 50/50 odds of being right.

In summary, I highly recommend this book. It's also a great source of inspiration to learn more about specific people, places, and events in Korean history.

[follow-up to my initial statements]
Korean history is best told by Koreans and NOT foreign authors. Why? As shown by the histories of China, Korea, and Japan, "western" culture has often incorrectly interpreted "eastern" culture. For example, western authors frequently confuse which Korean king did what. This is often because they failed to note that kings were typically referred to by one name while alive and another after their death. Also, as with many other countries, the history of Korea contains many events where the Korean government has intentionally hidden or distorted certain aspects of its culture to foreign governments. This is especially true of the relationships between China, Korea, and Japan - those three countries have played cat and mouse with each other for centuries. You can find a Chinese, Korean, and Japanese account of the same historical event and they may have significantly different views. One of them may describe a particular battle as a victory, another calls it a crafty political ploy, and the other calls it an insignificant accident.

I should also clarify that while the author is listed as "Eckert", this was translated into english by a group of American (Harvard??) and Korean scholars/historians. That's it for my diatribe - hope it helps.

This book is pieced together from two earlier efforts (hence the old and new of the title). Although the second part, containing the latter history of Korea from the mid-19th century to 1990, is more detailed and analytical, the entire book is the best text around. This text has spawned new specialist histories of Choson, Buddhism, and Confucian studies. It is also better edited for typographical and linguistic errors than previous histories.

However, some questions remain, mostly related to the question of Korean nationalism. The authors address the peculiar problem Korea faces: cultural chauvinism combined with dependence on foreign markets, notably Japan and the United States. The authors admirably and courageously document the role of the Japanese and American policies in Korean development, the nature of Pak Chung Hee's regime, and the fortuitous nature of Korean economic recovery, but still cling to cultural nationalist baggage about the cultural, linguistic, and racial unity of the Korean nation, downplaying the numerous historical political entities on the Korean peninsula and significant regional differences.

As Korea becomes more pluralistic and its economy more open, information about the last 5 decades will continue to filter through, but, increasingly this liberalness is purchased with a racial and linguistic chauvinism that threatens to keep studies of Joseon and Koryo wrapped in inviolate sacrality. Although the authors final note of a turn to more participatory evolution of Korean politics, the bigotry and exclusivity of the Korean market is left intact.

One way this is manifested in the book is the separation of political and economic sections, as in the nineteenth and twentieth chapters. The way the Pak regime operated directly impacts how Korea's economy developed. Separating the two discussions, leaves open the fallacy that Korea can continue to develop without political liberalization. It is almost a disguised tribute to Pak and his Japanese mentors. An end to mindless adulation of the supposed "Korean Miracle" is a prerequisite for continued Korean development and development of Korean studies.

The book also needs to be updated for the 1990's, particularly the troubles of the two Kim administrations, because the author's concerns have important policy implications. In Korea, history is immediately played out in the contemporary arena.

This book is the best place for laymen and beginning students to start. it is a model, both in its honesty and authorial collaboration, for future Korean studies.