[Editorial] We must properly understand and define the 1946 Daegu uprising

Posted on : 2013-01-22 15:32 KST Modified on : 2013-01-22 15:32 KST

Even today, there is confusion about how to define the citizen uprising that took place in Daegu on October 1st, 1946. Authoritarian regimes of the past denounced the citizen demonstrations, referring to the incident as the “Daegu Riot,” and alleging that it occurred under orders from the South Korean Communist Party.

As democratic governments came to power, academics argued that we must correct our understanding of the incident and call it the “Daegu Resistance Movement.” Their contention was that it was a citizen uprising triggered by the failure of the American military administration’s land and food policies as well as by the brutal tactics of police officers recruited from the Japanese regime that ruled Korea as a colonial occupier from 1910-1945.

Even the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Korea (TRCK) treaded carefully, choosing the neutral name of the “Daegu October Incident.” However, the Commission did recommend that the reputation should be cleared and compensation paid to the families of those who had been unlawfully victimized by public power.

This is the context in which we should view a Jan. 16 Busan district court decision that the government bears is responsible for compensating victims from the Daegu incident. After all, these people were detained by the police and then killed. Their arrests and detentions did not follow legal procedure and were made for the sole reason that they or their families had been implicated in the events in Daegu. It is obvious that the government must provide compensation.

However, there are more than a few families in this situation. When the TRCK’s presented its findings in 2010, there were 60 victims to whose families it suggested the government should provide compensation.

Furthermore, there were around 7,500 other people who suffered at the time of the incident. Some of them were arrested and detained and then tortured or otherwise abused during the interrogation process; in the case of others, the police and extreme right-wing groups damaged or confiscated their homes and property after their release. The families of the victims were regarded as complicit in their so-called crimes, and they had to endure the shame of being viewed as criminals.

In consideration of those long years of suffering, we should take immediate action to clear their names and provide compensation. But under the current system, this is impossible.

Along the same lines, we cannot wait any longer to complete the unfinished work of the TRCK and properly define what happened in Daegu. Restoring honor to the families of the victims will only be possible once the incident has been redefined.

In the view of the judges in the case, the incident occurred when citizens and some left-wing groups started fighting the police and the administration because of the US military government’s employment of officials who were collaborators with the Japanese, delays in land reform, and the forced collection of food. The Daegu uprising was largely put down when the army arrived under martial law on Oct. 3, but the conflict expanded to the rest of the North Gyeongsang Province region by Oct. 6 and to the all of South Korea by the middle of December.

According to the judge, the complaints of the citizens of Daegu were the complaints of all Koreans. Ultimately, the court believes the excessive force and indiscriminate brutality wielded by the police, the army, and the far-right groups pushed some citizens to retreat to the mountains and join forces with the Communist guerillas.

The events that occurred in Daegu that October were the direct cause of the tragedies that followed the liberation of Korea from Japanese colonial rule. President-elect Park Geun-hye’s uncle Park Sang-hee was killed during these events, and her father Park Chung-hee’s decision to join the South Korean Workers’ Party was also connected to the incidents.

For such an incident, the families of the victims must not be forced to restore honor to their families through individual lawsuits. Instead, we must properly define the incidents in Daegu through a revision of the special law and work to ease the pain of all the victims. Lastly, we must view this incident as a historical lesson.

 

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

 

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories

Most viewed articles