뉴스레터

International Lecture Meeting commemorating the 90th Anniversary of the March 1st Movement

The March 1st Movement was a year-long national independence movement against Japan that began with the declaration of Korea's independence in Seoul on March 1, 1919. Ninety years have since passed. Perhaps it is because of the weight of time that our memory of the momentous event has faded. I cannot but wonder whether remembrance of the March 1st Movement has turned into a matter of habit, something we do without much thought when this time of the year rolls around. It is my hope that we remind ourselves of the words on the entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp: "One who forgets the past, condemns himself to relive it again."

Amid the widespread forgetfulness of a key historical event, there was still an effort to shed new light on the significance of the March 1st Movement in commemoration of its 90th anniversary. The "Significance of the March 1st Movement in World History," an international lecture meeting hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation, was this very effort.

GENG Yunzhi (Research Fellow, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Modern History) explained that the March 4th Movement served to awaken China to the meaning of modern nationalism and was a catalyst for a new cultural movement that opposed China's feudalism and the feudalist culture. He maintains that the March 1st Movement influenced the formation of modern Chinese society by inspiring the supporters of a new China, especially the youth and the progressive media.

In "Taisho (大正) Democracy and the March 1st Movement", MATSUO Takayoshi (Professor Emeritus, Kyoto University) examines a large-scale popular protest of the Taisho Democracy Movement that took place in Japan on the same day as the March 1st Movement. He concludes that both movements share the commonality of being popular movements against the ruling political system. The study of the impact of the March 1st Movement has tended to focus on the May 4th Movement. Therefore, MATSUO‘s study illuminates a new facet of the implications of the March 1st Movement. Nevertheless, there are essential differences in the processes by which the March 1st Movement and the Taisho Democracy Movement developed. Korea's and Japan's movements made divergent demands--independence and democratization, respectively. Moreover, the Taisho Democracy Movement did not oppose Japan's imperialism. Therefore, it may be somewhat of an exaggeration to conclude that there is a link between the two movements.

In the "Significance of the March 1st Movement and the Korean Provisional Government in World History,"　KIM Hee-gon (Director, Andong Independence Movement Memorial) argues for the uniqueness of the March 1st Movement and the Korean Provisional Government. He points out that the March 1st Movement was special in that the general populace was at the forefront of a struggle against imperialist aggression. He goes on to assert that save Poland and France, there were no other colonized nation that carried out an independence movement with its government-in-exile at the helm. As such, KIM argues that the significance of the March 1st Movement must be assessed in the context of world history.

In "Woodrow Wilson's Internationalism Then and Now: 1919-2009,"　Thomas KNOCK (Professor, Southern Methodist University) talks about U.S. President Woordrow Wilson's internationalism, which was Wilson's vision for the postwar world order, and the dualistic understanding of it during the 100 years since. Self-determination had always been brought up as an external influence on the March 1st Movement. Nevertheless, as mentioned during the discussion, the principle was meant to apply only to those nations that had been oppressed by the countries defeated in World War I. Therefore, it could not have applied to the Korean people, who were colonized by Japan, a victor nation. It follows that there was a huge difference between the scope and definition of self-determination the Korean people had embraced during the March 1st Movement and that of the Versailles Treaty. The task at hand is how we are to interpret this difference.

Micro-level research in Korea

In "Historical Significance of the Versailles Treaty System and the Korean Peninsula," KIM Yong-gu (Director, Hallym Academy of Sciences, Hallym University) regards the movement for national self-determination in 1919 is a global movement that occurred at the peripheries of international politics. He maintains that "Korea, Egypt, India, China, and other nations victimized by imperialist aggression expressed the desire to regain their lost right to national self-determination during the negotiation process of the Versailles Treaty, concluded between the Allied Powers and Germany." The Korean people joined in on the worldwide trend calling for a nation's right to self-determination through the March 1st Movement. They resisted Japan, a beneficiary of the Versailles system, and in a sense, challenged the Versailles system itself. In other words, the March 1st Movement was an act of resistance against imperialism, a new form of international power politics that had emerged during the restructuring of the international order following War I. From this perspective, the March 1st Movement was a movement of historical import.

The aforementioned presentations reaffirmed that the March 1st Movement was not simply an event in reaction to Japan's oppressive colonial rule and the Korean people's resistance to it. It was an event with implications in world history with direct and indirect connections to the Wilson's internationalism, a new global trend; the Versailles system that had been established post World War I; Japan and China's modern democratization movements; and the independence movements of the oppressed peoples around the world. The lecture meeting was a reminder that the study of history must be undertaken through ongoing exchanges between "insider and outside perspectives".

Finally, as briefly mentioned during the wrap-up discussion session, research must be carried out to assess the status and influence of the March 1st Movement in world history and the reactions of the governments and peoples of the United States, China, and Japan to it. Furthermore, provided that there is a dearth of studies in Korea on the individuals and regions that participated in the March 1st Movement, more micro-level studies on the event must be undertaken along with the macro-level studies on the implications of the March 1st Movement in world history. This is the only way that the March 1st Movement can be properly assessed. And what is especially important is that such studies do not stop at being one-time undertakings. Although this international lecture meeting had been met with high expectations as an opportunity to recast the March 1st Movement under a new light, it is true that public interest and participation was low. It is thus very important to organize and compile the findings of the lecture meeting and introduce them to the public.