Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Beyond Binaries: Decentring Foreign Knowledge in 20th Century Korea

­By Dolf-Alexander Neuhaus

Introduction

The history of Korea since the late 19th century is often seen as turbulent and tragic: in the early 20th century, the country transitioned from the ailing Chosŏn dynasty to Japanese colonial rule and liberation in 1945, followed by division, war, and dictatorship, before culminating in a remarkable economic and democratic success story in contemporary South Korea. Over a period of approximately 150 years, spanning precolonial and postcolonial eras, Korea experienced unprecedented transformations across political, cultural, religious, and social spheres, with Japanese colonial rule proving especially traumatic.

Drawing on the history of education in 20th century (South) Korea, this essay examines the historical development and adaption of foreign epistemologies and knowledge systems in Korea. Decentering foreign, particularly Western, knowledge systems is a central concern in contemporary scholarly discourse closely intertwined with postcolonial and decolonial theories. While postcolonial theory, developed primarily against the backdrop of Western colonialism in Africa, the Caribbean, India, and the Middle East, has proved fundamentally useful in questioning dichotomies, exposing asymmetrical power relations, and highlighting the agency of colonised people, it remains largely confined to a binary framework of Euro-American coloniser and non-European colonised. Important blind spots still persist: The brutal colonial legacy of the Russian Empire in Eastern Europe and continental Asia illustrates such limitations (Kassymbekova 2024). In a similar vein, this dichotomy fails to fully capture the complex historical reality in contexts such as East Asia, where the Chinese Empire served as a suzerain until the 19th century, and Japan became the dominating imperial power in the first half of the 20th century (Cheah and Hau 2022).

Korea’s historical experience challenges the traditionally coloniser-colonised binary for much of the 20th century, except perhaps during the period of Japanese occupation between 1910 and 1945. At the time of annexation, Korea differed from many other colonies in several crucial aspects: the country possessed longstanding ethnic and linguistic unity and internationally recognised borders that had remained stable for centuries (Cummings 2021, 2). Moreover, at least during the first half of Japanese colonial rule, Western missionaries and Koreans living abroad provided alternatives routes of modernity. Adding multiple stakeholders to the equation complicates the picture and raises questions as to what exactly should be de-centred.

A historic newspaper in Korean.
The historic newspaper Tongnip sinmun, April 7, 1897. Photo via Wikimedia.

This essay traces how Koreans negotiated, adapted, and at times challenged hegemonic knowledge systems that originated from China, Japan, and the West (mainly, but not exclusively, the United States). Rather than providing an exhaustive overview of 20th century Korean history, it sends probes into Korea’s educational history to demonstrate how Korean educational actors navigated and challenged competing foreign knowledge systems. When “provincialising” Euro-America from a Korean viewpoint, a different picture emerges compared to doing the same thing from Japan or a European colony such as India (Lee 2017, 12). Given the longstanding presence of missionaries from Europe and North America, the case of Korea, particularly the history of its colonisation by Japan, can be considered idiosyncratic. Moreover, putting colonial actors at the centre can acknowledge the complexity and contingencies of colonial history, including asymmetrical power relations and colonialism’s fundamentally violent nature, while avoiding the perpetuation of simplistic binaries such as colonised/colonisers, North/South, or West/rest (Cheah 2022, 1–4).

Moving beyond simple resistance to hegemonic knowledge systems, this essay seeks to understand decentring as the active negotiation between multiple competing epistemological frameworks. It argues that decentring in the Korean context involved strategic selection, adaptation, and synthesis across Chinese, Japanese, Western, and indigenous knowledge systems simultaneously. The following sections seek to elucidate this practice of multi-directional decentring. During different stages of Korean history, different foreign epistemologies occupied dominant roles: In the Chosŏn period (1392–1910), education focused mainly on Neo-Confucian classics originating in twelfth-century China. However, by the end of the 19th century, Koreans began to question Sinocentrism and Neo-Confucian societal order. During the colonial period, Japanese authorities gradually implemented a segregated education system aimed at assimilating Koreans into Japanese culture (Caprio 2009). Following liberation, division, and war, education in South Korea underwent rapid expansion under developmental dictatorship in the 1960s, while in the North the education system served to spread the regime’s ideology (Dittrich and Neuhaus 2023, 541–545).

Modernising and Diversifying the Landscape of Knowledge Production

While late 19th century Japan navigated between the “West” and “Asia” as primary others (Sakamoto 1996; Zachmann 2007), Korea faced a more complex epistemological landscape that included three competing others: China, the “West”, and Japan, alongside indigenous traditions like shamanism, enabling strategic manoeuvring among multiple knowledge systems rather than simple binary oppositions. For centuries, the epistemological position of China had been overwhelmingly dominant in Chosŏn-Korea, whose societal order was anchored in Neo-Confucianism. Toward the end of the 19th century, however, Sino-centric epistemologies became the subject of intense debate and contestation, with conservative and progressive political camps advocating different approaches to modernisation, knowledge production, and education. This led to the existence of competing and overlapping knowledge systems during this period of transformation. The transformation of Korea’s inscriptional practice was, as historian Andre Schmid has shown, part and parcel of this contested decentring of Sino-centric knowledge and the formation of a Korean national identity during the late 19th and early 20th century (Schmid 2002).

Against this backdrop, Korean reformers led by Kim Okkyun (1851–1894) attempted to implement a progressive 14-point reform program in Korea. Encouraged by the teachings of Japanese liberal thinker Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835–1901), they called for national independence from the Chinese Qing Empire, abolition of the hereditary class system, the convening of a cabinet, and other modernising reforms (Kim 2014, 15–6). However, their violent attempt to oust the pro-Chinese faction in December 1884, known as the Kapsin coup, ended in failure. Consequently, the pro-Chinese faction was able to consolidate their control at the Korean court.

A decade later, China’s defeat in the first Sino-Japanese War provided Korean reformers with a new opportunity to advance their modernisation agenda. Between 1894 and 1896, successive Korean governments implemented broad reforms inspired by Japanese and Western examples. These measures were actively supported by the Japanese and included the abolition of Chinese-style examinations (kwagŏ) and the replacement of Chinese characters (hanja) with the indigenous vernacular script han’gŭl as the main writing system, though in practice a mixed script came into use. Debates about purifying the Korean language continued to be shaped by the logic of decentring the legacy of China through the colonial and postcolonial eras. By the 1990s and 2000s, hanja use had steadily decreased (Schmid 2002, 259–60).

During the closing decade of the 19th century, the Korean education system continued to undergo significant diversification. However, the transmission and adaptation of new knowledge extended well beyond Japan. In 1884, King Kojong, the penultimate ruler of the Chosŏn dynasty, opened the country to Christian missionaries and actively promoted the teaching of new knowledge, leading to an influx of North American missionaries who established numerous schools nationwide. The curriculum expanded beyond bible studies to encompass a broad range of secular subjects including humanities (world history, geography), sciences (mathematics, natural sciences), language instruction (e.g. English), and practical training (physical education, industrial crafts). Hence, Western missionaries offered less privileged segments of the population an alternative, ‘unadulterated’ route of knowledge transmission early on, alongside traditional knowledge and expertise mediated through Japan.

Simultaneously, private initiatives emerged in the educational landscape. Leading members of the Independence Club (Tongnip hyŏphoe), including Western-educated reformers like Sŏ Chaep’il (1864–1951) and Yun Ch’iho (1865–1945), vehemently criticised Confucian education while advocating enlightenment and self-strengthening through their bilingual newspaper The Independent (Tongnip sinmun). The newspaper appeared in Korean and English with the Korean section printed exclusively in hangŭl script, completely dispensing with Chinese characters (Sŏ 2014, 261). However, for Koreans, like other activists outside Europe and America during this era, enlightenment was not seen as an exclusively Western concept (Conrad 2012). Regardless of its brief existence from April 1896 to December 1898, the Independence Club’s long-term impact on Korean history is significant. Its members included key reformers and future independence activists. Many later played prominent roles in the Korean YMCA, which became a revitalised version of the club.

Patriotic movements in early 20th century Korea carried forward the legacy of the Independence Club. After Japan’s 1905 victory over Russia and the establishment of its protectorate over Korea, both official and private actors promoted modern education and self-strengthening initiatives. These efforts fuelled what became known as the Patriotic Enlightenment Movement (aeguk kyemong undong). Many Korean leaders viewed modern schooling and industrial development as crucial to safeguarding national sovereignty. In 1906, Chang Chiyŏn (1864–1921) and others published the “Manifesto of the Korean Association for Self-Strengthening” in Hwangsŏng sinmun (Capital Gazette), advocating simultaneous investment in education and industry to build national power (Robinson 2007). Spearheading the movement, the Sinminhoe (New People’s Association) promoted education as a patriotic necessity. Historian Pak Ŭnsik (1859–1925), one of its key figures, underscored the importance of “new learning” to avoid being reduced to inferiority through ignorance and subjugated by foreign powers (Pak 1996), urging his countrymen to improve domestic industry and skilled labour in order to survive in a social-Darwinist world. This educational ferment resulted in a wave of private and Christian school openings, which proved very popular. By 1910, there were approximately 2,000 of these institutions with an estimated 200,000 students (Lee 1963, 97).

Education and Japanese Assimilation Policy during the Colonial Era

After annexation in 1910, Japanese colonial authorities superimposed their education system upon Korea’s existing fragmented yet evolving educational landscape of traditional schools, modern institutions, and foreign missionary establishments that nevertheless continued operating throughout the colonial period. Japanese educational policy in Korea served one main purpose: to mould loyal and acquiescent colonial subjects. Within a year of annexation, the newly appointed Governor-General in Korea, Terauchi Masatake, issued the first Korean Educational Ordinance (Chōsen kyōikurei). The general provisions stipulated that “the essential principle of education in Chosen [Korea] shall be the making of loyal and good subjects by giving instruction on the basis of the Imperial Rescript concerning Education […] [and] shall be adapted to the needs of the times, and the condition of the people.” To achieve these goals, colonial officials implemented schooling focused on industrial training for Koreans, who were generally portrayed as possessing a low level of civilisation (mindo) by Japanese propaganda.

Although geared towards assimilating Koreans as Japanese subjects, the system was characterised by pervasive segregation and discrimination, severely restricting civil rights and access to higher education. The public common schools emphasised Japanese language instruction and morals, while excluding Korean geography and history prior to 1922. Instead, the curriculum prioritised basic and vocational skills for manual labour, with even higher education focusing on practical subjects like agriculture and engineering. These were the key components of the so-called civilising mission that fulfilled the empire’s economic needs while developing a sufficiently educated yet subordinate colonial population.

The countrywide March First Independence Movement of 1919 marked an important watershed in colonial Korean history. The Japanese used excessive force to contain the movement, prompting international and domestic criticism. In response, Japanese authorities redefined colonial rule in ‘cultural’ terms, lifting the most repressive restrictions. The new “cultural rule” (bunka seiji) facilitated the emergence of a vibrant Korean nationalist press. Articles in nascent Korean newspapers such as the Tonga ilbo (East Asia Daily) critically examined issues related to education and its connection to the colonial assimilation policy (Neuhaus 2023, 616). While some restrictions lingered, Koreans embraced education as a strategy for national development and resistance. Cultural nationalists in the early 1920s pursued national reconstruction within colonial constraints through three key movements. While the Society for the Promotion of Korean Production (Chosŏn mulsan changnyŏhoe) focused on economic development through national consumption and industries, two educational organisations, the Society for the Creation of a National University (Millip taehak kisŏng chunbihoe) and the Korean Language Research Society (Chosŏn’ŏ yŏn’guhoe), connected learning with national self-strengthening under colonial rule (Robinson 1988, 78–106).

Moreover, Koreans sought alternative routes of knowledge production beyond the restrictive colonial system. Missionary colleges, such as Chosen Christian College (today’s Yonsei University), provided access to Western educational models independent of Japanese mediation (Park 2014, 30; Underwood 1926). Similarly, Korean students who pursued education abroad, in Japan and the United States, but also in China and Europe, brought back intellectual frameworks that challenged colonial epistemologies. Notably, Korean students in Japan had anticipated and catalysed the March First movement by declaring Korean independence on February 8th, 1919 at the Korean YMCA in Tokyo, preceding the main Seoul declaration by almost a month (Neuhaus 2024). These alternative knowledge flows proved instrumental in empowering Korean independence activism, as students leveraged their educational experiences to organise protests, school boycotts (tongmaeng hyuhak), and demonstrations against discriminatory colonial education policies. Socialist thought developed a significant force among Korean students and intellectuals in the 1920s, challenging both traditional Neo-Confucian ideas and Japanese colonial policies. Student activism continued to drive resistance movements in 1926 and 1929 (Kim 2005, 249-80; Caprio 2023, 229; Neuhaus 2023, 624).

With the escalation of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Japan’s need for total mobilisation led to further repression of Korean self-expression to expedite radical assimilation under the slogan ‘Unity of homeland and Korea’ (Nai-Sen ittai) (Caprio 2009, 145–8). Japanese colonial authorities aggressively enforced imperialisation policy(kōminka seisaku) and national education (kokumin kyōiku) aiming to completely annihilate the distinct cultural and linguistic identity of the colonised. While Korean students now on paper received equal education opportunities as their Japanese counterparts, inequities lingered and the difficulties for admission became even harsher. In practice, Korean schoolchildren now had to compete directly with Japanese children for admission and advancement. Simultaneously, Korean language, history and culture were fully eliminated from school curricula. Meanwhile, missionary schools were forced to close if they did not perform Shinto rituals.

Technical Education in the 1960s/70s

After independence, primary education became universal under American influence in South Korea, yet the hierarchical, exam-oriented culture persisted, causing secondary education to remain highly restricted until the late 1960s. As part of the decolonisation process, the post-1945 school system was modelled after the American example. However, the long tradition of exam-based meritocracy which was rooted in Confucian civil service examinations and reinforced under Japanese colonial rule through selective entrance exams and the imperial civil service system continued throughout the 1950s and 60s. In order to curb the phenomenon of ‘exam hell’, the military government which had usurped power in the early 1960s tried to implement a controversial policy of equalisation (Lee 2021).

Following the normalisation of diplomatic relations through the Treaty on Basic Relations in 1965, Japanese advisors played a significant role in establishing vocational and technical high schools under the United Nations Development Program. Mired in poverty after the Korean War, with a per capita GNI of only $120 in 1962, South Korea heavily relied on foreign aid for its development efforts. Following the enactment of the Vocational Training Act in 1967, Korea received funds, technical resources, equipment, and consultation from multiple countries, including West Germany, Japan, the United States, and Belgium. This shift occurred against a backdrop of dual crisis: the export-driven light industry policy was reaching its limits, while increased North Korean aggression and Cold War tensions heightened security concerns. President Park, who had served as a lieutenant in the Imperial Japanese Army before 1945, sought to learn from Japan’s model, remarking during a 1967 visit: “We, who have no experience, are eager to build our country with empty hands.” To address critical shortages of skilled workers for heavy chemical industry, the government overhauled the industrial education system, adopting a specialisation strategy that designated select industrial high schools as pilot institutions receiving concentrated investment.

One salient example of this cooperation with Japan is the Kumoh Technical High School in Gumi. The proposal was first submitted by Korean Minister of Commerce and Industry Lee Nakseon at the 1970 Osaka Expo, with Korea requesting Japanese funding of $2,600,530 out of a total project cost of $3,672,560 to cover facility construction, Japanese teacher salaries, Korean teacher training, and equipment procurement. The Fourth Korean-Japanese Cabinet Meeting culminated in a partnership agreement, and a grant agreement was finalised in August 1971. The school opened in March 1973 as one of four experimental schools for training precision machining, with eight Japanese technical teachers arriving in May to teach students and exchange technical skills with Korean teachers over a three-year period. Notably, just months before opening in October 1972, the school was converted into a technical sergeant training school, demonstrating how Cold War security concerns reshaped educational objectives to meet urgent military needs. This case exemplifies the broader pattern of pragmatic adaptation by the Park military regime: despite the legacy of exploitative colonial education policies, the regime drew on Japanese expertise and models to serve its own industrialising efforts and nation-building process in the 1970s.

Conclusion

Korea’s educational system embodies multiple ingrained traditions and reveals distinct yet interconnected strategies of decentring: the late nineteenth century enabled strategic selection among multiple competing knowledge systems including Chinese Neo-Confucian learning and ‘modern’ knowledge from Japan and the West. During the colonial period, Koreans resisted among other things through accessing alternative knowledge networks via missionary schools and study abroad, while the military government in the post-independence era demonstrated pragmatic adaptation, resorting to educational policies in the process of nation-building, which at times could resemble colonial practices and objectives in the educational sector. Today, while not without causing social and economic problems, South Korea’s educational success serves as an example of a high-achieving education society.

This complex amalgamation, outlined here merely in broad strokes, exemplifies how knowledge travels, transforms, and adapts across different historical contexts. The Korean case demonstrates that decentring is not simply a matter of rejection, but rather involves navigating and synthesising multiple competing epistemological frameworks simultaneously. While for example “Asianisation” is occasionally touted as a remedy, the colonial experience has led to a persistent scepticism in Korea towards conceptualisations of Asia, particularly when these ideas originate from Japan or China, as the discourse on Asia was inextricably linked with questions of hegemony and empire during the 19th and 20th century (Lee 2019).


This article is based on a presentation held on September 13, 2024 at the German Institute for Japanese Studies in Tokyo, Japan.


References

Caprio, Mark E. 2009. Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea, 1910–1945. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Caprio, Mark E. 2023. “Korean Reactions to Japanese Education Policy under Cultural Rule, 1920–1931.” In Education, Language, and the Intellectual Underpinnings of Modern Korea, 1875–1945, edited by Andrew Hall and Leighanne Yuh, 215–38. Korean Studies Library, vol. 6. Leiden: Brill.

Cheah, Pheng. 2022. “Introduction: Situations and Limits of Postcolonial Theory.” In Siting Postcoloniality: Critical Perspectives from the East Asian Sinosphere, edited by Caroline S. Hau and Pheng Cheah, 1–32. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Conrad, Sebastian. 2012. “Enlightenment in Global History: A Historiographical Critique.” The American Historical Review 117, no. 4: 999–1027.

Cumings, Bruce. 2021. “Korea, A Unique Colony: Last to be Colonized and First to Revolt.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 19, no. 21: article 2.

Dittrich, Klaus, and Dolf-Alexander Neuhaus. 2023. “Korea’s ‘Education Fever’ from the Late Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century.” History of Education 52 (4): 539–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2022.2098391.

Hau, Caroline S., and Pheng Cheah, eds. 2022. Siting Postcoloniality: Critical Perspectives from the East Asian Sinosphere. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Kassymbekova, Botakoz. 2024. “Imperiale Unschuld als Identität und Methode: Opferkult und Kolonialismus der Russländischen Föderation [Imperial Innocence as Identity and Method: Cult of Victimhood and Colonialism in the Russian Federation].” Totalitarismus und Demokratie 21 (1): 37–56.

Lee, Chong-Sik. 1963. The Politics of Korean Nationalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lee, Yoonmi. 2019. “A Critical Dialogue with ‘Asia as Method’: A Response from Korean Education.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 51, no. 9: 958–969.

Lee, Yoonmi. 2021. “Baby Boomers and the Collapse of the ‘Narrow Gate’: The Equalisation Policy and the Expansion of Secondary Education in South Korea, 1968–1974.” History of Education 52 (4): 633–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2020.1856947.

Kim, Hoil. 2005. Han’guk kŭndae haksaeng undongsa, 1905–1945 [A History of the Modern Korean Student Movement, 1905–1945]. Sŏul: Sŏn’in.

Kim Okkyun. 2014. „Kōshin nichiroku“ [The Kapsin Diary]. In Chōsen kaikaha senshū: Kimu Okukyun, Paku Yonhyo, Yu Giruchun, So Jepiru, [Selected Writings of the Korean Enlightenment Movement. Kim Okkyun, Pak Yŏnghyo, Yu Kilchun, Sŏ Chaep’il], translated by Tatsuhiko Tsukiashi, 9–90. Tōyō bunko 848. Tōkyō: Heibonsha.

Neuhaus, Dolf-Alexander. 2023. “Beyond Assimilation and National Resistance: ‘Education Fever’ during the Colonial Period in Korea, 1910–1945.” History of Education 52 (4): 611–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2023.2213190.

Neuhaus, Dolf-Alexander. 2024. Jenseits von Nation und Imperium: Interaktionen koreanischer Studierender und japanischer Protestanten (1880–1923) [Beyond Nation and Empire: Interactions between Korean Students and Japanese Protestants (1880–1923)]. Globalgeschichte 38. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.

Pak, Unsik. 1996. “Essay on Education.” In Sourcebook of Korean Civilization. Volume II. From the Seventeenth Century to the Modern Period, edited by Peter H. Lee, 418–420. New York: Columbia University Press.

Park, Albert L. 2014. “A Sacred Economy of Value and Production: Capitalism and Protestantism in Early Modern Korea (1885–1919).” In Encountering Modernity: Christianity in East Asia and Asian America, edited by Albert L. Park and David K. Yoo, 19–46. Los Angeles: University of Hawai’i Press, UCLA Asian American Studies Center.

Robinson, Michael E. 1988. Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920–1925. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Sakamoto, Rumi. 1996. “Japan, Hybridity and the Creation of Colonialist Discourse.” Theory, Culture and Society 13, no. 3: 113–128.

Schmid, Andre. 2002. Korea between Empires, 1895–1919. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sǒ Chaep’il. 2014. “‘Dokuritsu shinbun’ sōkanji” [Inaugural address of ‘The Independent’]. In Chōsen kaikaha senshū: Kimu Okukyun, Paku Yonhyo, Yu Giruchun, So Jepiru, [Selected Writings of the Korean Enlightenment Movement. Kim Okkyun, Pak Yŏnghyo, Yu Kilchun, Sŏ Chaep’il], translated by Tatsuhiko Tsukiashi, 259–264. Tōyō bunko 848. Tōkyō: Heibonsha.

Underwood, Horace H. 1926. Modern Education in Korea. New York: International Press.

Zachmann, Urs Matthias. 2007. “Blowing Up a Double Portrait in Black and White: The Concept of Asia in the Writings of Fukuzawa Yukichi and Okakura Tenshin.” positions: asia critique 15, no. 2: 345–368.


About the Author

Dolf-Alexander Neuhaus has served as a senior research fellow at the German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ) since February 2024, working in the research field “Japan in transregional perspective”. He holds a master’s degree in Japanese Studies and History from the Free University of Berlin and earned his Ph.D. in January 2022 with a dissertation titled “Entangled Asia: Korean Exchange Students and Japanese Protestants, 1880-1923”. His doctoral research examines the impact of Korean students in Japan and their integration into Protestant and liberal networks through the lens of global historical entanglements and postcolonial approaches. During his doctoral studies, DAAD and TIFO scholarships enabled research stays as a visiting researcher at the universities of Tokyo, Tsukuba, and Yonsei (Seoul). Between 2011 and 2015, he worked as a research assistant at the Institute of Japanese Studies at Free University Berlin and later at the Korean Studies program at Goethe University Frankfurt.


Other Articles in the Series “De-centering Academia: InterAsian Perspectives”

Fathun Karib, Bumantara and a World Federation. Revisiting Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana’s Ideas on a Culture of Inclusion in Times of Crisis, 02.04.2026.

Harald Kümmerle, Carl Schmitt’s Afterlife in Decolonial Theory: Rereading Walter Mignolo, 10.03.2026.

Claudia Derichs, Riho Isaka and Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka, De-centering academia: InterAsian Perspectives, 03.02.2026.


Citation: Dolf-Alexander Neuhaus, Beyond Binaries: Decentring Foreign Knowledge in 20th Century Korea History, in: TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research, 07.05.2026, https://trafo.hypotheses.org/65491

Forum Transregionale Studien
Forum Transregionale Studien
The Berlin-based Forum Transregionale Studien promotes the internationalization of research in the humanities and social sciences. It provides scope for… Read more

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Forum Transregionale Studien (May 7, 2026). Beyond Binaries: Decentring Foreign Knowledge in 20th Century Korea. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. Retrieved June 15, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/166ug


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.