Addressing a difficult past in South Korea: Was Cheju 4.3 a genocide?

This paper discusses the memory of Cheju 4.3, a bloody conflict in South Korea that occurred between 1947 and 1954. Approximately 25,000–30,000 people lost their lives there, the majority of whom were innocent civilians. Drawing from collective trauma theory, the paper focuses on the phenomenon in South Korea of framing the incident as genocide. I demonstrate how, in the context of the memory battle over this difficult past, dissenting voices have been an obstacle for these efforts. Yet I also argue that, while Memory Studies scholarship commonly demonstrates how collective memory is influenced by struggles between memory agents with conflicting interests, the case at hand illustrates how choices made by memory agents who share a common agenda have hindered their own efforts. The paper identifies a significant discrepancy between the gravity associated with the term “genocide” and the vague manner in which Cheju 4.3 has been framed as such.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Memory Studies
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980251379666
Primary Topic
Korean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Addressing a difficult past in South Korea: Was Cheju 4.3 a genocide?

Guy Podoler
Memory Studies
Korean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
article

Addressing a difficult past in South Korea: Was Cheju 4.3 a genocide?

Guy Podoler
article en

Abstract

This paper discusses the memory of Cheju 4.3, a bloody conflict in South Korea that occurred between 1947 and 1954. Approximately 25,000–30,000 people lost their lives there, the majority of whom were innocent civilians. Drawing from collective trauma theory, the paper focuses on the phenomenon in South Korea of framing the incident as genocide. I demonstrate how, in the context of the memory battle over this difficult past, dissenting voices have been an obstacle for these efforts. Yet I also argue that, while Memory Studies scholarship commonly demonstrates how collective memory is influenced by struggles between memory agents with conflicting interests, the case at hand illustrates how choices made by memory agents who share a common agenda have hindered their own efforts. The paper identifies a significant discrepancy between the gravity associated with the term “genocide” and the vague manner in which Cheju 4.3 has been framed as such.

Memory Studies
University of Haifa (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Korean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.