This book review was written by Eugene Kernes
“Towards the end of the Bronze Age,
stronger tribes headed by such political leaders subordinated weaker groups and
extracted tribute from them. The
frequency and scale of battles increased with the spreading use of metal,
including iron, and warfare produced rulers and the ruled. As tribes merged through war and alliances,
larger polities arose, first in Liaoning and north-western Korea. The earliest known and the most powerful was
Kojosǒn.” – Eugene Y. Park, Chapter 1: The Dawn of Korean Civilization to
391 CE, Page 23
“The Three Kingdoms improved economic productivity by
strengthening tax collection and manpower mobilization, disseminating iron
farming tools, and promoting plowing with oxen.
Each also produced luxury goods that required sophisticated
craftsmanship to meet the demands of royals and aristocrats. Increased manufacturing and agriculture
allowed surplus production, which stimulated commerce and trade. The state and elites instituted strict laws
to buttress a caste-like aristocracy system, with administrators, commoners,
and slaves, while promoting Buddhism for social harmony and order.” – Eugene Y.
Park, Chapter 2: The Three Kingdoms, Pyuǒ, and Kaya, 391-676, Page 40
“As the appointment and promotion of those paying bribes
became rampant, rapacious officials filled their pockets by imposing unjust
taxes and surcharges on the population.
Furthermore, as the population began to decrease, after frequent natural
disasters led to widespread famine and epidemics, the tax burden on struggling
ordinary farmers only increased. With
spreading discontent, outright resistance became more frequent as Korea
underwent significant socioeconomic changes.” – Eugene Y. Park, Chapter 8: Late
Chosǒn Renovation and Decline, 1724-1864, Page 195
Is This An Overview?
Korea’s technological progress in the Bronze Age brought
with it social stratification and the subordination of weaker tribes by
stronger tribes. Tribes became larger
and more centralized, eventually bringing about the Three Kingdoms of Paekche,
Koguryǒ, and Silla. The kingdoms were
brought together under the Koryǒ monarchy, which
transitioned into the Chosǒn. Becoming the two states of North and South
Korea after the end of Japanese occupation.
The kingdoms had their similarities and differences within conflicts
and foreign relations. Even from the early
Kingdoms, Korea’s culture and politics has been influenced by China. The kingdoms developed strict aristocracies,
with Buddhism, Confucianism, and later Protestantism for social harmony and
governance legitimization. Governance
which became a compromise between meritocracy and aristocracy through
examination and privileges. At times,
monarchs became figureheads.
The Korean states maintained their sovereignty through a
balance of power between them, and other neighboring states. But were often a tributary state, a colony of
another power such as China, Mongolia, Manchuria, or Japan. Preserving their identity while being
subordinate.
The economic burden of societies tended to be placed on the
lower classes, the farmers. When there was
more extraction from farmers, the economy suffered, which sparked
rebellions. The socioeconomic situation
improved when the lower classes were not under dire pressure, and were
supported by knowledge and innovation.
The political and economic tension persisted into the two states of
North and South Korea. Both had
authoritarian regimes, but while North Korea was influenced by Russia to pursue
economic self-sufficiency, South Korea was influenced by the United States to
pursue economic integration into a global economy. North Korea’s economy initially fared better
than South Korea’s, but South Korea flourished due to globalization, while
North Korea suffered through a lack of needed support.
Caveats?
This book can be difficult to read, as a lot of diverse
details are provided in quick succession.
There is often a lack of explanations for events other than the details
of what happened, with poor transitions between events. The informational organization when
describing contemporaneous Korean states can make it difficult to understand
what information effects what state. The
difficulty of reading the book was alleviated when the author was describing
shorter time horizons, with fewer political states.
As a book on Korea, the author favors interpreting
information to favor Korea. A present
but not major bias, is the representation of Korea as more victim and others as
perpetrators, while limiting information on Korea’s aggressions.
