‘평화적 혁명’으로서의 3･1운동: 폭력성의 조건과 비폭력･불복종

Abstract

During the March 1st Movement, approximately 85% of the street demonstrations the Japanese police and military suppressed by firing weapons erupted into violence. This figure suggests a high correlation between suppression by force and the consequent resort to violence on the part of the demonstrators. The fundamentally nonviolent nature of the March 1st Movement must be examined with this correlation in mind. Most of the violence during the movement was closely tied to how the Japanese authorities responded as the following points show: First, no Korean could have premeditated a violent protest at that time. The movement had only been discussed a month or so in advance, and there existed no organization powerful enough to plan an armed struggle. Second, most of the street demonstrations, having been organized in a matter of days, could only be carried out peacefully. Although some demonstrators carried tools, there was not a single report of anyone carrying a weapon such as a sword, scythe, or bamboo spear. Third, in those cases where violence did occur, it was almost always in response to the ruthless suppression undertaken by Japanese authorities. Hardly anyone attacked the Japanese out of sheer hatred or animosity. Koreans participated in the movement from a sense of freedom, and the majority of the demonstrations did not devolve into acts of hostility. Previous studies on the March 1st Movement have largely overlooked its nature as an uncompromising act of civil disobedience. In most peace movements, civil disobedience starts from the moral principle of “cooperation with good and non-cooperation with evil.” By the same token, Koreans refused to cooperate with unjust laws and systems and thus rejected Japan’s colonial rule. Although their belief in civil disobedience was not particularly made apparent during the March 1st Movement such as in the nationalist movement in India led by Mahatma Gandhi or the civil rights movement in the United States led by Martin Luther King Jr., a microanalysis of the “violent” aspect of the street demonstrations clearly show elements of civil disobedience in the March 1st Movement: street demonstrations mostly started out as nonviolent; violence was used on the second day or later in those lasting for two days or more, indicating that it was used in response to or in anticipation of merciless suppression; and finally, many demonstrations continued to be nonviolent despite the armed response by Japanese authorities. It can thus hardly be denied that the major demonstrations of the independence movement were carried out according to the principle of peaceful civil disobedience. As an extremely well-organized movement grounded in a spirit of nonviolence and peaceful civil disobedience, the March 1st Movement can be defined as a “peaceful revolution” based on the following three aspects: First of all, it was a practical movement. Even the demonstrators who resorted to violence did not regard destruction itself as their objective. Second, it was a moralistic movement that aimed to reform the colonial rulers rather than obliterate their power. Third, it was a creative movement and a cultural struggle. A nonviolent disobedience movement turns anger into a constructive force. The movement was strengthened by its creativity and association with culture. The Koreans who took part in the movement turned it into an occasion for personal growth. In this respect, it was both a “revolutionary” movement and a peaceful revolution.