The Korean Empire army was ordered to disband

The Korean Empire army was ordered to disband on August 1, 1907. In the name of the emperor of the Korean Empire, Lee Wan-yong, the prime minister at the time, and Lee Byung-moo, the military minister, issued a decree to officially dismantle the Korean Empire's army and ordered the protesters in Hanseong to disarm.

Park Seung-hwan, commander of the 1st Regiment's 1st Battalion, committed suicide after writing a suicide note in his room in anger at the decision. When the troops of the 1st Battalion and 2nd Regiment learned of this news, they refused to return their weapons in accordance with the regulations and fought a street battle against the Japanese forces stationed in Hanseong at the time.

By the standards of the time, this incident was a clear 'rebellion'. The military dissolution was issued as an official rule, and the troops, except for these two battalions, voluntarily returned the weapons. It is a crime of protest at the time that he had already resisted the order, and it is a 'rebellion' in that he fought with weapons. In addition, it may have been difficult to be recognized even under international law at the time in that it launched a preemptive surprise attack without declaring war on the Japanese military, which was 'legally' stationed in Hanseong at the time.

However, current history does not define this as a rebellion, treason, or 'terrorism'. I remember them as participants who died fiercely fighting to the end against Japan's coercive military dissolution. This is possible because we know the 'context' before and after that and we know the 'reason' why they fought with weapons like this.

In discussing history, this is the trap for those who speak of the so-called 'fact' to fall into. If we discuss it from the point of view of the fact, the actions of the two battalions of protesters at the time were protest, reverse conspiracy, and terrorism. However, the problem is that this is only the result of interpreting the legal meaning of the act based on the time, and that this is not 'truth'. For this to be true, it must be proved that the legal entity of the time was a subject with legitimate authority, both at the time and historically, and it must be agreed that we are inheriting the legitimacy of such a subject. However, we do not recognize the legitimacy of the legal entity of that time or its succession. At least if we are not descendants of the Empire of Japan now.

The same is true of discussions about terrorism regarding the independence movement. It is true that "it was terrorism from a Japanese point of view at the time", but it is not terrorism to us today. We did not recognize the Japanese colonial rule at that time as legitimate for us, nor did we inherit the Joseon Government-General or the Japanese Empire, which are the main subjects of the colonial rule. Touching a blind elephant is not much different from asking, "Isn't this not true?" Since the tail of an elephant is where I am touching it, doesn't it look like a rope.

In the drama "Mr. Sunshine", which depicts a street battle between Seosomun in 1907, catcher Jang Seung-gu, who was a protesters' officer, shouts at Gojong, who orders him not to go out with a gun. "God, I'm going to be a traitor now." Upon hearing this line, no one would think, "Oh, Jang Seung-gu finally shows his true colors and shows his resentment towards King Gojong." I know what the context is before and after that.

Objectivity in history only comes from recognizing the subjectivity of the subject, and history as an object itself that excludes subjectivity cannot exist. Even if the same event is described, it is natural that Korea's position and Japan's position are different. As Jang Seung-gu's actions say, the condition for becoming a "rebel" is not the problem of the nature of the event itself, but what is the position and perspective of the subject looking at the event. That is why from the point of view of Korean history, the armed independence struggle after the 1907 Seosomun cigar war or annexation cannot be a "terrorism".