It really wasn’t that long ago, historically speaking, that the current northern provinces of the Korean peninsula were held to be different from the southern half of the peninsula. I don’t remember how long into the Chosun Dynasty it continued, but well into that dynasty, parts or most of what is today North Korea was administered as military districts – not civil – as were the provinces that made up what is today South Korea. There were also different times where the government encouraged migration up north by freeing slaves or granting higher socio-economic status and whatnot. I believe even the founder of Chosun himself was from this northern area and considered to have some Manchurian tribal blood running through his veins….

Were Korean discourses about the West at all a factor in identity formation?

The issue of purity and racial theories is interesting. One of Oguma’s main arguments is that, while it was brought up in debates on race in the Meiji period, the homogeneous nation argument doesn’t became dominant in the discourse until post-1945, with Japan being an example of imperialistic multi-racialism. I wonder if these Meiji period debates on race had an impact on the same group of intellectuals who are debating Korean-ness in the late 19c in Korea.

I forgot to mention why the late 19c vs. 1920s matters. If the emphasis is placed on the former then it can’t exclusively be anti-Japanese imperialism since scholars were equally concerned about 사대주의(事大主義) towards China on a cultural and intellectual level. It still makes it arguably reactive, but the more dispersed reaction is even more common in the many examples of 19c nationalist movements in Europe.

Baltimoron: I have heard a lot about Wells’ book but haven’t had a chance to look at it, thanks.