Except for specialists working on the period, the Korean Empire's (1897–1910) project to develop Pyongyang as the "Western Capital" (Sŏgyŏng) is not all that well known even among Korea historians. From the perspective of international relations, there can be no doubt that the Russo-Japanese War sealed independent Korea’s fate. All the same, in the last two decades or so, Korea’s own effort toward modernization has received more attention among historians who no longer dismiss the history of the Korean Empire as the tail end of the Chosŏn Dynasty. For sure, the official rhetoric that empires old and new have had two capitals conceals imperial Korea’s self-perceptions about its place in the civilized world of the past, the present, and the future. Moreover, scrutiny of the circumstances in which the government undertook the project before it came to a halt allows insight into the Korean Empire’s understanding of geopolitical realities at the time.

Eugene Y. Park is the Korea Foundation Associate Professor in History in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the director of Penn's Korean Studies Program. Dr. Park completed his doctorate in East Asian languages and civilizations at Harvard in 1999 and has received numerous research grants and fellowships, including: a 2007–08 Seoul National University Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies Fellowship; a 2003–04 Korea Foundation Advanced Research Grant; a 1999–2000 Yale University Council on East Asian Studies Postdoctoral Fellowship; a 1996–97 Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship; and a 1995–96 Fulbright Fellowship. His research interests focus on the sociopolitical history of early modern Korea, and his current work examines the chungin ("middle people") to address questions of modernity, identities, and agency. His book, Between Dreams and Reality: The Military Examination in Late Chosŏn Korea, 1600–1894, was published by the Harvard University Asia Center in 2007. He has published chapters and articles in venues such as Journal of Social History and Yŏksa wa hyŏnsil.

Narratives of emancipatory struggle have occupied a privileged position in modern Korean nationalist discourse since the start of the twentieth century. Historians have not yet delved fully into the production and impact of emancipation narratives in modern Korea. This talk examines the transposition of this venerable anti-colonial narrative frame to South Korean political and public discourse during and after the student protests of April 19, 1960. The postcolonializing of emancipatory stories at this critical juncture has profoundly shaped the nation’s politics and culture in subsequent decades.

Charles Kim is an assistant professor of modern Korean history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research interests include nationalism, narrative, popular culture, and historical memory. At present, he is at work on a project that explores the post-colonial reconfiguration of Korean nationalist discourse in and through the seminal event of April 19th.  He holds a PhD from Columbia University, an MA from UCLA, and a BA from Pomona College.

This lecture will discuss the re-creation of public spaces in contemporary Seoul, analyzed as a long-term and contested process of decolonization in the wake of 35 years of Japanese rule (1910–45). Through an opening discussion of Namsan (South Mountain), Dr. Henry will show that the recreation of the city’s colonial spaces began quickly after liberation with the erasure of Chōsen Shrine, perhaps the most violent symbol of wartime "imperialization" (1937–1945), and its subsequent replacement with various nationalist monuments, including a memorial to the turn-of-the-century martyr Ahn Chung-gŭn (1879–1910).  "Chosŏn renaissance" is the term that he has coined to capture the most recent manifestations of a decolonizing project that re-imagines Korea's last dynasty as national glory. Dr. Henry’s discussion of the ongoing restoration of Kyŏngbok Palace, once the site of the Government-General building and various colonial period expositions, will demonstrate how this monument has come to serve as Seoul's showpiece for promoting South Korean patriotism and "tradition," albeit without directly referencing the country’s tumultuous modern history. Like the newly restored Chŏnggye Stream and the recent installation of a plaza and statue memorializing King Sejong (r. 1418–50), the restoration of Kyŏngbok Palace, a project that will not be completed until 2030, aims to remind South Korean citizens and international visitors of the illustrious and independent history of the peninsula before the onset of Japanese rule and four decades of post-colonial authoritarianism.

Dr. Henry (Ph.D., UCLA, 2006) is a specialist on modern Korea with a focus on the period of Japanese rule (1910–1945). He works on the comparative and transnational study of imperialism/colonialism, gender/sexuality, and critical urban studies. He is currently completing a book manuscript which examines the intersection of space and power in the city of colonial Seoul. 

Analyzing official economic and demographic data of China, Japan, and Korea, Aoki identifies the four phases of economic development that these economies have been passing through and are expected to face. Each phase is characterized by a particular pattern of relationships between demographic factors, such as labor participation rates and rural-urban migration on one hand, and economic performances measured by per capita GDP and labor productivity on the other. There is expected to be a remarkable commonality in this demographic-economic dynamic among those economies, stemming from the common historical legacy of monsoon agriculture dominated by small family-managed farms in pre-industrialization time. Together with this commonality, however, there are differences in the timing of transitions from one phase to the next, conditioned by political events and so on, as well as in institutional arrangements facilitating the transitions. Aoki characterizes these patterns of demographic-economic-institutional dynamics as "Flying Geese Paradigm Version 2.0," distinguishing it from the original Flying Geese Paradigm, once popular in the development economics literature, that focused on the historical pattern of technological transfer in Asia from the 1930s to the 1960s. Aoki then goes on to discuss its policy implications in terms of possible strategic complementarities