Abstract
The twentieth century was the era of nationalism: independent countries rose up calling for the recovery of their national identity. The imperial and colonial dominance of the European countries fell after the World War II, and the national identities were constructed through numerous national revolutions. Many countries that shared cultural practices, religious beliefs, historical roots or ethnicity defined themselves as nations and freed themselves from the influence of former colonialists. Korea, formerly colonized by Japan, achieved national independence in 1945. However, it remains divided as Nam Han, Republic of Korea (ROK), and Buk Joseon , Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK); commonly referred as South Korea and North Korea. \r Since the division, influenced by political ideology, economic system, and leadership, the two Koreas have become radically different from each other. One of the results of the division is nationalism. Both South and North Korea undertake an ethnic nationalism that calls for reunification of the two. However, the political climate both domestic and international has encouraged the leaders of the two Koreas to develop different forms of ethnic nationalism. Korea was one independent kingdom for almost 1100 years, but even the acknowledgement of its history differs between the North and the South. Therefore, Korea can serve as a rich source of understanding the impact of factors like leadership and political climate on nationalism.\r Understanding the two nationalisms would yield a perspective in the call for reunification. The two Koreas do not acknowledge one another as countries but as rebels against each other. Since the division, to establish the legitimacy of their own governments, both have attempted to undermined the legitimacy of the other. Additionally, both Koreas have been influenced by the dictatorships in which the freedom of speech was severely oppressed and limited. In the 1960s and 70s, South Korea was under the rule of Park Jung Hee when North Korea was under Kim Il-sung. As a result, many of both Koreas’ interpretation of each other have been biased and lack full understanding of their counterpart. After the Korean War in the 1950s, both governments acknowledged that violence should not be the primary means of reunification. The detrimental repercussions of the war yielded valuable lesson to Koreans that peaceful coalition should be the vision at all times. But because neither acknowledges the other to be legitimate, the results of the peace talks have been futile. Although both have renounced physical violence each still assumes ideological superiority to the other, hindering useful conversation between the two. By comparing the different nationalisms in the two Koreas, this paper hopes to explore possibilities for peace in the Korean peninsula and further, even reunification.