North Korea: Another Country

Rating:
Summary: Interesting in a "Through the Looking Glass" kind of way
Review: The thesis of this book is so bizarre that I had to keep checking to make sure that he wasn't simply being facetious. I really couldn't believe that a professor in one of the premier history departments in the nation could give North Korea such an uncritical pass.

Sure, the United States has made errors in its policies toward North Korea. Absolutely, the media likes to create Green Goblin-style maniacal villains and do so with the Dear Leader. But even with all of these legitimate criticisms, how does one overlook the horror show that is North Korea?

Interestingly, he ends up with a rather condescending explanation for DPRK bad behavior: "That's just the way they are-they're Communists." It sounds like this: "The U.S. stood by and allowed the South Koreans to massacre political prisoners during the the Korean War. Of course, the North Koreans killed thousands but we should expect that from them, they're Communists."

Read this book by all means-political satire doesn't get much better than this.

Rating:
Summary: It definitely challenges many conventions!
Review: Cuming's book is indeed a long-winded and emotional

description of North Korea that, at times, does not relate to North Korea specifically, but to US ideology and perceived knowledge about Korea, Koreans, and the Korean War that shape our (American) perceptions of North Korea. Probably because of this, I have read a review that called this book "one of the worst books 'on North Korea' ever written". To the extent that "North Korea: Another Country" does not exclusively address the "horror story that is North Korea" (ie, the personality cult, gulags, famines, terrorism, kidnappings, and the imminent collapse) that is the common currency of practically any article, study, or book on North Korea published in the West, this is correct. At least one thing Cumings' book does do, however, is to provide the reader with a compelling explanation as to why the "Guerrilla State" of North Korea is the way it is, particularly through a history on the crucible of Korean experience in the 20th Century-a history I don't think I could have found in a book written by any other so-called expert on (North) Korea. I believe this is the books' best contribution to the literature on the subject, and although much of the information he uses is from his previous research (those who have read Cumings' "Origins of the Korean War Vols. I & II", beware), this book is a much quicker read. Cumings also provides unique and seemingly plausible explanations for the North's behavior in the current nuclear crisis.

Some who read this work will be (an have been) enraged by what is ostensibly seen as Cumings' "tolerance for a dictatorial regime" if not a kind of reverence for, or coddling of, the bloody-minded leaders of North Korea. Therefore, I think most American readers (and some others) will believe Cumings is walking on pretty thin ice in this regard; and his shattering of the standard American beliefs about the Korean War will make some throw the book across the room in anger. However, what many of the author's detractors don't really seem to understand is that Cumings believes that he is sending out a cry, in the only way he knows how, to avoid yet another devastating war that will quite surely kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Koreans. He thinks that if US leaders come to an understanding that the North Korean regime will be around for a very long time (regardless of what transpires), and that North Korea does not HAVE to be our enemy if we don't want it to be, a war will be avoided and many Korean lives will be spared. His writing makes me feel that his intentions are motivated by a strong emotional bond to Korea and its people. This is also probably what is the subtext of much of the critics' anger over this book and Cumings' other works: Why would a (Caucasian-)American man so vehemently stick up for an Asian nation and its people, sometimes at the expense of his own nation's reputation? This is probably what is the most challenging for many readers to get past, but I believe that Cumings' work has always made for fascinating and thought-provoking reading.

Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly slanted, rarely insightful.
Review: Cumings is amazing for his audacity, if nothing else. He uses his wife's research, his personal bias and his emotional "connection" with North Korea to create a stream-of-consciousness mess that's as much editorial as it is historical. His displeasure with South Korea (and America, though I'm with him on many of those points) is evident from the beginning - but what becomes clear as the book spirals on is that he's as out of touch with the South as he claims the rest of the world is with the North. He offers "current" examples from the 80s and offers no evidence to back up many of his decidedly irregular interpretations of history (making it seem, in many cases, that the whole world is out to get Kim Jong-Il). Despite all of the facts contained in the book, the author's almost coercive interpretation of them to the reader means it's difficult to take the book seriously. Not an entirely worthless read, but be prepared for a fairly hefty dose of the author's opinion along with the facts presented.

Rating:
Summary: Blind look at the most repressive regime in the world
Review: Cumings writes about a nation he knows nothing about. As someone who works with North Korean refugees, I know this for a fact. Cumings is preoccupied with self analyzing North Korea's neighbors rather than dealing with the fact that the truth is within the evil regime of the Kims.

Most aid to North Korea is from the nations North Korea despises: South Korea, US, and Japan. I wish someone would write about the Concentration camps and the fact that three million people in North Korea have died "mysteriously." Has anyone even seen the videos smuggled out of North Korea. Is Mr. Cumings aware of what aid agencies are calling the worst case in the world to date?

Rating:
Summary: Good book, but read carefully
Review: I can understand many of the other reviews of this book calling it slanted, biased, or infuriating. Cumings is *not* trying to be objectively balanced and thorough, but rather trying to point out what should be widely known, but is instead ignored in what passes for U.S. media "coverage" of North Korea. He is often sarcastic or laconic, and is relaxed where most writers get breathless. That can easily be misread as forgiving or apologetic.

Basically, he takes for granted that we know about the nastier aspects of North Korea from reading the newspaper, and the standard view of the Korean War you get from reading American histories of the 50s. What he points out, for instance, is that if one were to read the Pentagon's discussions of massive nuclear bombing in the 50s and exercises in the 1970s and 80s with nuclear-armed fighter planes from the isolated outlook of the North Koreans, one can perhaps understand their claim to be threatened by the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Now, the American side obviously has no real interest in starting a war that could kill millions, but doesn't that still resemble a nuclear superpower posing a threat to a small, isolated, friendless country?

The main point of Cumings' book is just how poorly the U.S. media cover the North Korean issue: only during a crisis, the same old scary stories about the antics of crazy old Kim Jong Il get recycled yet again, and the South Korean and CIA intelligence reports get quoted, no matter how incomplete they may be.

Cumings also points out some uncomfortable truths about the absolute devastation of North Korea during the Korean war; that the US felt threatened by what they saw as a vast, monolithic, global, unrelenting Communist threat does not change the fact that all of the devastation happened on the Korean peninsula.

If you want to keep seeing North Korea in black-and-white, by all means, read something else. If you want to read about how horrible North Korea's regime is, this is not the book. If you want to understand why MacArthur, Ridgeway, et al. made the decisions they made, or understand the right-wing dictatorship of South Korea had until the 80s, read a different book. If you want to get some idea of how the complicated history of the 20th century might look from the other side of the DMZ and get the decoder ring to understand North Korea's bizarre diplomacy, this book is a good start.

Rating:
Summary: Rather Disappointing...
Review: I give "North Korea: Another Country" three stars but grudgingly so. I couldn't give it two because I'm a big softy so I gave it three. Here's why:
The book had many detractors, unfortunately the biggest one being its author. His Left-wing bias permeates the book and it suffers as a result. Prof Cumings demonstrated what a great liberal he is by spouting the usual anti-U.S. rhetoric of being happy when the other side "puts us in our place" (p. xiii, Preface). He hates the Bush Administration and makes sure you're reminded of it every twenty to twenty-five pages throughout the entire book. He dislikes Republicans, conservatives, etc. and brings up our "illegal war" in Iraq more than once. He is dismissive of almost all U.S. military officials that enter the history, from MacArthur (p. 150-151) to Ricassi (p. 199).
Whether Prof Cumings meant to or not, he comes off as being a great admirer of the North Koreans. While laying out eight pages of American atrocities during the Korean War, he sums up the DPRK's in one sentence, with the lame apologist excuse that we expect communist countries to do that (p. 30-40). He seems to write with awe and wonder at how great North Korean infrastructure is, how their neo-Confucian Communism has really soaked into every facet of life and how the people love their Great and Dear Leaders. It comes off as some aged hippie dreaming of long-dead Marxist propaganda and longing for the great socialist dream.
The author editorializes more than he lays down the facts, and he skips over the nasty stuff: he apologizes for the Gulag system on p. 174-176 and on p. 151 apologizes for the DPRK's Stalinism by saying that this is the Korean "concept of freedom." Please... With barely a sentence or two Prof Cumings quickly changes subjects, as unfortunately many of his progressive comrades do.
As is readily discernible I can easily be called a conservative. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to read Right-leaning garbage about how the Third Reich was just misunderstood and how Adolf just needed a hug. But neither do I want to read stuff like this. I want history, I want facts, and I want them presented accurately and excitingly. The book "Flyboys" comes to mind readily. No social commentary necessary.
For the beginning student of North Korea, this might not be too bad. Neither is it too good. It did inform me somewhat but I was left generally disappointed. I have rarely said this but I will probably not seek to read this author's works again...

Rating:
Summary: Rather Disappointing...
Review: I give "North Korea: Another Country" three stars but grudgingly so. I couldn't give it two because I'm a big softy so I gave it three. Here's why:
The book had many detractors, unfortunately the biggest one being its author. His Left-wing bias permeates the book and it suffers as a result. Prof Cumings demonstrated what a great liberal he is by spouting the usual anti-U.S. rhetoric of being happy when the other side "puts us in our place" (p. xiii, Preface). He hates the Bush Administration and makes sure you're reminded of it every twenty to twenty-five pages throughout the entire book. He dislikes Republicans, conservatives, etc. and brings up our "illegal war" in Iraq more than once. He is dismissive of almost all U.S. military officials that enter the history, from MacArthur (p. 150-151) to Ricassi (p. 199).
Whether Prof Cumings meant to or not, he comes off as being a great admirer of the North Koreans. While laying out eight pages of American atrocities during the Korean War, he sums up the DPRK's in one sentence, with the lame apologist excuse that we expect communist countries to do that (p. 30-40). He seems to write with awe and wonder at how great North Korean infrastructure is, how their neo-Confucian Communism has really soaked into every facet of life and how the people love their Great and Dear Leaders. It comes off as some aged hippie dreaming of long-dead Marxist propaganda and longing for the great socialist dream.
The author editorializes more than he lays down the facts, and he skips over the nasty stuff: he apologizes for the Gulag system on p. 174-176 and on p. 151 apologizes for the DPRK's Stalinism by saying that this is the Korean "concept of freedom." Please... With barely a sentence or two Prof Cumings quickly changes subjects, as unfortunately many of his progressive comrades do.
As is readily discernible I can easily be called a conservative. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to read Right-leaning garbage about how the Third Reich was just misunderstood and how Adolf just needed a hug. But neither do I want to read stuff like this. I want history, I want facts, and I want them presented accurately and excitingly. The book "Flyboys" comes to mind readily. No social commentary necessary.
For the beginning student of North Korea, this might not be too bad. Neither is it too good. It did inform me somewhat but I was left generally disappointed. I have rarely said this but I will probably not seek to read this author's works again...

Rating:
Summary: On Principle
Review: I still need to read this, but 5 stars just for caring enough to write about North Korea in the first place. The world needs more able Koreanists.

Rating:
Summary: Good insights on NK
Review: I think Professor Cumings is largely misunderstood. I strongly disagree with people's assertion that he is an apologist. Many have had problems with his findings because his audacity to criticize the American government. People believe that he is anti-America for doing so but he is being truly embracing the Americanness by criticizing our government. In fact, that is our duty as the citizens of this country, is it not?

This book introduces us to a country that is vaguely known to the rest of the world. We see the exterior of this country and we make judgements. Yes, North Korean government is horrendous but his point is that calling it an evil empire isn't really helping the situation in Korean Peninsula. In many respects it is unproductive to talk about it in those terms, as President Bush has done. In sum, we can't simplify the situation. Whether we like it or not, we have to deal with NK and in order to have any success in achieving peace in the region, we need to look past the apprent "evilness" of the government for the sake of people of Korea. Bruce Cumings really has been a controversial figure but I think his insights on North Korea, whether it's left or not, has helped us look at the country in a different light.

On another note, people have mistaken his claims that about Korean War. Bruce Cumings isn't saying NK didn't start the war. Yes they did. But if you look at the history of that country closer, it is clear that both sides were itching to go to war, to obtain control over the entire peninsula. Cumings doesn't really think that who first attacked is all that relevant because if Kim Il Sung and his cronies didn't, Syung Man Rhee would have. As Kim Il Sung was begging the Soviets for the "go-ahead", Rhee was begging the Americans for the same thing. Now the important thing is to look at how could we have avoided the war. That's what history is about isn't it?
I don't agree with Bruce Cumings on many things but I respect him as a scholar and his views challenges mind and that pushes me to become a better scholar. This books challenges our perceptions of the country and about our own judgements; that in itself makes this worth a read.

Rating:
Summary: Poor, Misunderstood Kim Dynasty
Review: In "North Korea: another country, the unitiated reader will get a good short introduction to Bruce Cumings and his views on the present-day Korean Peninsula, in all their infuriating clarity.

Cumings is right on several things in this book and wrong on much else. He is right to criticize the Wesern news media's coverage of North Korea for focusing almost entirely on its bizarre features while making little effort to figure out why it is so, and what the leadership is thinking. Perhaps if a country is so bizarre as to be unknowable, the news media are relieved of the responsibility of digging into it to inform their readers. One example of this was the coverage of Kim Jong-Il's 2001 visit to Russia by train. The US media focused on his unwillingness to fly and other trivia, but largely ignored the key point: a one-month absence showed he had great confidence in his grip on power.

Cumings is also right to inform readers of the devastating strategic bombing campaign that the US Air Forces unleashed on North Korea in 1950-53. The US forces brought their WWII experience intact to Korea and proceeded to flatten the North. It is important for Americans to know this, not because the USAF should have done differently in supporting our ground combatants, but because a) it is a matter of history and b) it helps explain some of the subsequent political and military behavior of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, to give the North its full title. By the time of the 1953 Armistice, Kim Il-Sung was as great a believer in US air power as General Curtis LeMay. Kim ordered the burrowing of underground facilities of all kinds, from hangars to factories. One can also draw a line from that war experience to the later North Korean determination to develop nuclear weapons.

What is most tiresome about Bruce Cumings is that he constantly tries to excuse present-day North Korea. He avoids the obvious: that the only proper comparison is with South Korea. In that comparison, North Korea comes off very badly indeed. Having worked six years in Seoul as a US diplomat (in the late '70's and from 1988-92) and having later visited North Korea five times with an international organization, I see no excuse for North Korea's being the way it is, except for the obvious one -- keeping the Kim Dynasty and close supporters in power at the expense of all other North Koreans. To retain a semblance of objectivity, Cumings provides ritualistic interjections to the effect that of course North Korea is not a nice place.

On page 199 of his "Korea's Place in the Sun" (1997), Cumings states it would have been preferable for Kim Il-Sung's 1950 invasion to succeed, calling it a "purifying upheaval that might have been pretty awful," but not as bad as the Korean War or the 1960 uprising against Syngman Rhee or the 1980 Kwangju Uprising. (In the latter two events, the death toll was measured in the hundreds, not the millions.) In this breathtaking scenario, he asserts that a Korea unified under Kim in 1950 would have moderated over time, "as did China, as Vietnam is doing today." What Professor Cumings manages to gloss over in these short sentences is nothing short of stupefying. As John Merrill points out in "Korea: The Peninsular Origins of the War," over 100,000 Koreans were killed on the peninsula in left-right violence even before the North invaded the South on June 25, 1950. Kim Il-Sung carried out brutal purges in the part of Korea he did control, and was ruthless in imposing his rule in the North. Success for Kim in 1950 would have been bloody indeed and would have left South Koreans without hope of economic or political improvement, and Kim without any incentive for either. As for Cumings's breezy comparison with China, he surely knows how many millions died in Mao's mad schemes like the Great Leap Forward. Few South Koreans who remember the war would appreciate his consigning them to the tender mercies of the Kim Dynasty. Though he states the point less clearly here, Cumings is still distressed that Kim was thwarted in 1950.

In general, Bruce Cumings explains North Korea's structure and behavior as being more Confucian than Communist. He draws on the structures and traditions of the Yi Dynasty or Chosun Korea (1392-1910) to illuminate the North. There is a fair amount of truth in that comparison. Where his simile runs onto the rocks is the nearly total militarization of North Korea, which has only accelerated after the dynastic succession to Kim Jong-Il, who initiated the "son-gun" (military first) policy. In Confucian Chosun times, military officials clearly took a back seat to civilian scholar-officials. To me, the best comparison to make with that central aspect of the North is with the highly militarized and regimented Japan between the world wars.

A reader wanting to learn more about North Korea would do far better to read "North Korea Through the Looking Glass" by Katy Oh and Ralph Hassig. It is far more objective and thorough.