Scan barcode
red_nositel's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.5
choomsky's review against another edition
4.0
A completely different perspective on North Korea than what most Westerners have been exposed to before. Cumings acknowledges the colossal failures of the North Korean regime under Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il ("the author of most of its own troubles") but contextualizes its stance towards the outside world while delivering a readable and occasionally witty concise history.
summerfruits's review against another edition
3.0
thought this was a decent read, but i definitely did not like it as much as i thought i would have. i was initially quite excited to start reading this, as i haven’t encountered many academics sources/writers that were committed to providing a more comprehensive account of North Korea’s historical trajectory and present as Bruce Cumings seems to be, but i thought that this book, in addition to honestly being quite dry, despite Cumings’s attempts at making the text more personable, fell a bit short of my expectations.
though the book is split into six chapters each covering a different aspect of the DPRK and the chapters don’t seem to connect or flow into one another very smoothly, making for a bit of a disjointed read, there is a clear through line in the whole book that Cumings references again and again in each chapter. the main argument he seems to be making is that although the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is that all of its leaders act in irrational and violently unpredictable ways, everything the government does can be read as logical consequences of the country’s history of colonial and imperial occupation and violence. the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is neatly summed up by Hazel Smith as the “mad/bad actor” paradigm, which argues that all of North Korea’s actions/policies often get interpreted in two ways: as irrational (mad) or evil/immoral (bad). however, Cumings pushes back against this binary, arguing with this book that North Korea’s policies are not evidence of a country run by an immoral madman but instead evidence of a country that is simply trying to defend itself against even more foreign interference and imperial violence. whether or not one agrees with North Korea is irrelevant to the purpose of this book; what’s more important is the reconfiguration of North Korea from a country/government that is irrational to one that is quite predictable, which Cumings argues is an important perspective for analysts and other officials looking to ‘understand’ and work with North Korea to internalize.
in addition to Cumings’s main argument, there are two other themes that i thought undergirded the majority of this book. the first is that the overly punitive perspective the West, particularly the United States, has towards North Korea’s nuclear development and other military/defense actions is hypocritical, as practically everything that North Korea does and is then accused of being immoral for the United States also does as well. the second is that the way that North Korea gets represented in the United States is often blatantly racist–Cumings very candidly wrote, “Prominent Americans lose any sense of embarrassment or self-consciousness about the intricate and knotty problems of racial difference and Otherness when it comes to North Korea and its leaders” (49). this matches up with the observations made in Gauthier (2015) that the media often portray North Korean through an Orientalist lens. in this way, because he illuminates the narrow way that North Korea often gets represented and understood rather than continuing this tradition of representation, this book can be considered counter-hegemonic—that is, Cumings is presenting an alternate perspective of North Korea for his audience.
as Cumings is a historian—his research specifically focuses on the Korean War and East/West relations—and an academic, his audience is similar, as gleaned from the academic style this book is written in. as someone who honestly isn’t as well versed or interested in history than some, this book was definitely a tough read, and was very obviously not meant for a layman’s audience, or at least not written with one in mind. though I think Cumings’s writing style is more prosaic than most academic writing I’ve encountered, the book was still quite dry and difficult to get through. Cumings’s attempts at dispersing personal anecdotes or jokes throughout were honestly more eyeroll-inducing than genuinely humorous, and often felt straight up racist—one anecdote about the accented and ‘inaccurate’ English skills of the North Korean guide that accompanied him on one of his trips to North Korea sticks out in particular. this resulted in a weird feeling of tension as i read on—as this is one of the only counter-hegemonic representations of North Korea in academia that i’ve come across, should i turn a blind eye to Cumings’s questionable rhetoric for the maybe larger mission of representing North Korea more fairly and not only with the limited frameworks that are available? reading reviews of this book by academics and non-academics alike, it seems as though the attitudes towards this book and Cumings more broadly are quite mixed. some think that this book is a crucial, critical addition to the literature available regarding North Korea; some think he’s too sympathetic towards North Korea and too “anti-American”. still some think he doesn’t take his critiques far enough, as there is an undercurrent of anti-communism that Cumings references again and again throughout the book, as though reminding us of his personal beliefs in order not to be fully alienated from the canon or his academic field, which gets at a larger issue of anti-communism and defanging of radical/revolutionary politics in academia as a whole.
alongside his reluctance to stray too far from the mainstream perspective regarding North Korea, Cumings also relies heavily on the limited list of sources that are seen as acceptable evidence in academia—namely newspapers, historical records, and government documents (but only those originating in the US) and his own observations during his trips to North Korea. this privileging or reifying of American sources—even with, or maybe in spite of, the acknowledgement that Western media is often skewed in their reporting of North Korea that Cumings centers in this book—perpetuates the feeling of distrust regarding North Korea in the West, a feeling that considers all North Korean records as fictionalized propaganda and does not allow the country to define itself, instead holding that American perspectives, biased as they may be, still hold more weight and ultimately form truths. this aligns with a larger Orientalist framing of North Korea/ns as dishonest and unable to think or act for themselves that Gauthier (2015) talks about, representing North Korea as a country in perpetual need of foreign intervention.
additionally, his usage of his own personal experiences in North Korea as evidence adds to this denial of North Korean self-determination as it perpetuates the idea that Western visitors have a better understanding/view of North Korea than North Korean themselves because of their non-North Korean identity. in short, Americans/Westerners are allowed to use their personal experiences as objective evidence because their American identity is tied to notions of objectivity.
in sum, although Cumings’s goal for this book was to provide a more nuanced understanding of North Korea that doesn’t fully fall into pre-existing narratives regarding the country, ones that are often problematic, he is only able to achieve this to a certain extent, as the rest of the book is bogged down by a recurring undercurrent—that is sometimes made quite explicit—of anti-communism and Orientalism/racism that Cumings seems to espouse simultaneously as well.
though the book is split into six chapters each covering a different aspect of the DPRK and the chapters don’t seem to connect or flow into one another very smoothly, making for a bit of a disjointed read, there is a clear through line in the whole book that Cumings references again and again in each chapter. the main argument he seems to be making is that although the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is that all of its leaders act in irrational and violently unpredictable ways, everything the government does can be read as logical consequences of the country’s history of colonial and imperial occupation and violence. the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is neatly summed up by Hazel Smith as the “mad/bad actor” paradigm, which argues that all of North Korea’s actions/policies often get interpreted in two ways: as irrational (mad) or evil/immoral (bad). however, Cumings pushes back against this binary, arguing with this book that North Korea’s policies are not evidence of a country run by an immoral madman but instead evidence of a country that is simply trying to defend itself against even more foreign interference and imperial violence. whether or not one agrees with North Korea is irrelevant to the purpose of this book; what’s more important is the reconfiguration of North Korea from a country/government that is irrational to one that is quite predictable, which Cumings argues is an important perspective for analysts and other officials looking to ‘understand’ and work with North Korea to internalize.
in addition to Cumings’s main argument, there are two other themes that i thought undergirded the majority of this book. the first is that the overly punitive perspective the West, particularly the United States, has towards North Korea’s nuclear development and other military/defense actions is hypocritical, as practically everything that North Korea does and is then accused of being immoral for the United States also does as well. the second is that the way that North Korea gets represented in the United States is often blatantly racist–Cumings very candidly wrote, “Prominent Americans lose any sense of embarrassment or self-consciousness about the intricate and knotty problems of racial difference and Otherness when it comes to North Korea and its leaders” (49). this matches up with the observations made in Gauthier (2015) that the media often portray North Korean through an Orientalist lens. in this way, because he illuminates the narrow way that North Korea often gets represented and understood rather than continuing this tradition of representation, this book can be considered counter-hegemonic—that is, Cumings is presenting an alternate perspective of North Korea for his audience.
as Cumings is a historian—his research specifically focuses on the Korean War and East/West relations—and an academic, his audience is similar, as gleaned from the academic style this book is written in. as someone who honestly isn’t as well versed or interested in history than some, this book was definitely a tough read, and was very obviously not meant for a layman’s audience, or at least not written with one in mind. though I think Cumings’s writing style is more prosaic than most academic writing I’ve encountered, the book was still quite dry and difficult to get through. Cumings’s attempts at dispersing personal anecdotes or jokes throughout were honestly more eyeroll-inducing than genuinely humorous, and often felt straight up racist—one anecdote about the accented and ‘inaccurate’ English skills of the North Korean guide that accompanied him on one of his trips to North Korea sticks out in particular. this resulted in a weird feeling of tension as i read on—as this is one of the only counter-hegemonic representations of North Korea in academia that i’ve come across, should i turn a blind eye to Cumings’s questionable rhetoric for the maybe larger mission of representing North Korea more fairly and not only with the limited frameworks that are available? reading reviews of this book by academics and non-academics alike, it seems as though the attitudes towards this book and Cumings more broadly are quite mixed. some think that this book is a crucial, critical addition to the literature available regarding North Korea; some think he’s too sympathetic towards North Korea and too “anti-American”. still some think he doesn’t take his critiques far enough, as there is an undercurrent of anti-communism that Cumings references again and again throughout the book, as though reminding us of his personal beliefs in order not to be fully alienated from the canon or his academic field, which gets at a larger issue of anti-communism and defanging of radical/revolutionary politics in academia as a whole.
alongside his reluctance to stray too far from the mainstream perspective regarding North Korea, Cumings also relies heavily on the limited list of sources that are seen as acceptable evidence in academia—namely newspapers, historical records, and government documents (but only those originating in the US) and his own observations during his trips to North Korea. this privileging or reifying of American sources—even with, or maybe in spite of, the acknowledgement that Western media is often skewed in their reporting of North Korea that Cumings centers in this book—perpetuates the feeling of distrust regarding North Korea in the West, a feeling that considers all North Korean records as fictionalized propaganda and does not allow the country to define itself, instead holding that American perspectives, biased as they may be, still hold more weight and ultimately form truths. this aligns with a larger Orientalist framing of North Korea/ns as dishonest and unable to think or act for themselves that Gauthier (2015) talks about, representing North Korea as a country in perpetual need of foreign intervention.
additionally, his usage of his own personal experiences in North Korea as evidence adds to this denial of North Korean self-determination as it perpetuates the idea that Western visitors have a better understanding/view of North Korea than North Korean themselves because of their non-North Korean identity. in short, Americans/Westerners are allowed to use their personal experiences as objective evidence because their American identity is tied to notions of objectivity.
in sum, although Cumings’s goal for this book was to provide a more nuanced understanding of North Korea that doesn’t fully fall into pre-existing narratives regarding the country, ones that are often problematic, he is only able to achieve this to a certain extent, as the rest of the book is bogged down by a recurring undercurrent—that is sometimes made quite explicit—of anti-communism and Orientalism/racism that Cumings seems to espouse simultaneously as well.
ihfdayton's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Overall a very solid introduction for those who know little (or nothing) about the DPRK. It lacks a level of depth that I would have liked, and it sometimes veers more into personal anecdotes/evaluations than careful history, but these are relatively minor demerits. The most annoying part is the scattered comments that betray a (seemingly disingenuous) personal prejudice that is incongruous with and unsupported by preceding evidence and point of view. It makes me think that the editor was worried this book would be too controversial for American readers and so requested (or required) some inflammatory commentary in line with the dominant view. This is extremely unnecessary as the book is middling at best in its ideological point of view. The most that can be said is author is very critical of the US military and contemporary (Bush era) policy around North Korea, but his presentation of DPRK ideology often waffles between objective (if detached) praise and rote anti-communism. Again, I feel these oddities can be mostly overlooked and are mostly noticeable to those with more background knowledge about DPRK or a stronger ideological position.
alexisparade's review against another edition
4.0
From a left perspective this is a pretty tame defense of the DPRK, but for a book published in 2004 with a mainstream liberal audience in mind, this feels like an extremely cutting edge breakdown of how the United States actually helped create and then push North Korea into their supposed political extreme, and how North Korea’s actions aren’t nearly so irrational when viewed in historical context of all the atrocities that have been committed against them.
I had a lot of issues with some weird, one-off minutiae (Cuming’s jokes never, EVER land), and I think he often gives more lip service than necessary to the uncontroversial “look at how WEEEIIRD their lives are!!” perspective before finally getting around to his point ten pages later. Most of my real frustration with this book came from Cumings’ obvious unwillingness to discuss political ideology, though, which always comes off as an irrational fear of accidentally seeming TOO sympathetic to communism, especially when Cumings is always quick to remind us that don’t worry, he hates communists, too!! And while he definitely positions himself as more of a Korean War-era history expert than a modern political analyst, I think I was also expecting maybe a little more in-depth criticism of Bush’s unfounded North Korea/Iran/Iraq axis of evil, and how fear-mongering around North Korean nukes played into helping rationalize the WMD excuse for the Iraq War.
But the stats and research are all there, and nearly impossible to argue with, even if it’s left largely up to the reader to draw larger political conclusions about trade sanctions, Korean reunification, etc. For any normie democrat or even self-proclaimed leftist who finds themselves parroting mainstream anti-DPRK rhetoric without really understanding why, though, this book is extremely enlightening.
Side note: how weird was it when he referenced his wife Meredith Jung-En Woo’s academic study as the best source for a specific number without even like?? mentioning her by name, he literally just called her “my wife” lol
I had a lot of issues with some weird, one-off minutiae (Cuming’s jokes never, EVER land), and I think he often gives more lip service than necessary to the uncontroversial “look at how WEEEIIRD their lives are!!” perspective before finally getting around to his point ten pages later. Most of my real frustration with this book came from Cumings’ obvious unwillingness to discuss political ideology, though, which always comes off as an irrational fear of accidentally seeming TOO sympathetic to communism, especially when Cumings is always quick to remind us that don’t worry, he hates communists, too!! And while he definitely positions himself as more of a Korean War-era history expert than a modern political analyst, I think I was also expecting maybe a little more in-depth criticism of Bush’s unfounded North Korea/Iran/Iraq axis of evil, and how fear-mongering around North Korean nukes played into helping rationalize the WMD excuse for the Iraq War.
But the stats and research are all there, and nearly impossible to argue with, even if it’s left largely up to the reader to draw larger political conclusions about trade sanctions, Korean reunification, etc. For any normie democrat or even self-proclaimed leftist who finds themselves parroting mainstream anti-DPRK rhetoric without really understanding why, though, this book is extremely enlightening.
Side note: how weird was it when he referenced his wife Meredith Jung-En Woo’s academic study as the best source for a specific number without even like?? mentioning her by name, he literally just called her “my wife” lol
renatasnacks's review against another edition
4.0
I learned a LOT from this. After reading [b:The Orphan Master's Son|11529868|The Orphan Master's Son|Adam Johnson|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1327878601s/11529868.jpg|16467838] I realized I know like, nothing about North Korea. And now I know... some things about North Korea. This is a fairly dense read (... also I'm used to reading YA fiction so my bar for "dense" may have been lowered over the years) but it's certainly readable, and it is an intelligent & insightful look at the history of North Korea, particularly focused on the last 50 years or so.
Cumings has a very sympathetic, non-alarmist, non-patronizing perspective on Korean culture which is very refreshing for a USAian to read, since obviously most of our media... does not do that.
I'm still interested in checking out [b:Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea|6178648|Nothing to Envy Ordinary Lives in North Korea|Barbara Demick|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1320449375s/6178648.jpg|6358552] and/or [b:The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia|16248578|The Real North Korea Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia|Andrei Lankov|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1355426296s/16248578.jpg|22279286] for more about day to day life in North Korea, but this was really good, useful background reading for me.
Cumings has a very sympathetic, non-alarmist, non-patronizing perspective on Korean culture which is very refreshing for a USAian to read, since obviously most of our media... does not do that.
I'm still interested in checking out [b:Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea|6178648|Nothing to Envy Ordinary Lives in North Korea|Barbara Demick|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1320449375s/6178648.jpg|6358552] and/or [b:The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia|16248578|The Real North Korea Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia|Andrei Lankov|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1355426296s/16248578.jpg|22279286] for more about day to day life in North Korea, but this was really good, useful background reading for me.
val_halla's review against another edition
2.0
I hate leaving a book unfinished, but after reading the first half of this very long editorial, I couldn't justify the time it would take to read the rest. Published in 2003, a lot of the information in this book is outdated or irrelevant - not the author's fault, but something to consider before you pick it up. The writing itself varies, from personal opinions, to mocking world leaders, to random tangents and the occasional helpful take on history. Cumings keeps trying to connect the United States's handling of North Korea to other historical events, but it always seems like he is pushing his political beliefs onto the reader. There is definitely some valuable insight here, but you have to wade through a lot of bullshit to get to it.
More...