Talk:Han (cultural)

Han: Korean Feeling was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Huh? RickK 23:48, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Aparently some religious theory, if not patent nonsense. Not encyclopedic, delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to keep following a rewrite. - Mike Rosoft 11:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I think not. Strong Keep. I knew nothing whatever about han, but poking around online I found serious-looking pages that either explain the term in similar ways ([1]) or take it for granted as part of the Korean experience ([2], [3], [4]). We have characteristic national feelings of this kind in the West: Angst, joie de vivre, and something else in medieval Christianity that is somewhat related: acedia (very weak article there, by the way). — Bill 21:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep The concept of "han" exists, and the idea of the concept (as opposed to whether "han" exists) is encyclopedic. This article needs editing to remove the soft stuff and unrelated material (like conversion strategies), but the topic is a keeper.Gurdonark 05:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If this is a useful subject, I am willing to change my vote if the article is rewritten. At the moment, however, it has no place in an encyclopedia. - Mike Rosoft 10:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mike, I've left a note at User talk:172.202.238.95 since they are the original author of the page. I certainly agree it needs surgery to disentangle the Christian POV from the actual subject of han, which of itself has nothing to do with Christianity, and that's what I'm inviting User:172.202.238.95 to do. If they don't, I will — and of course I'd rather not, because, not knowing anything about the subject, in excising the Christian evangelism, I might do harm to the explanation of han. On the other hand, I feel you went a bit too far with the {{TotallyDisputed}}, since, as Gurdonark says, it's not a total dispute: we just need to excise the POV: I substituted a {{cleanup}} tag. Best, Bill 12:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well Gurdonark certainly did a beautiful job; I could never have done it. (I hope we haven't bitten User:172.202.238.95 though. — Bill 18:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) - Mike Rosoft 11:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

It seems like there might be nuggets of decent information that were lost in the rewrite of the article in October 2004. It hinted towards a relationship between han and Minjung theology that might help to support both of these rather weak articles, one that's briefly mentioned at: Christianity in Korea#Minjung theology and the human rights struggle. AKADriver 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is indeed a relationship between the concept of Han and Minjung theology. Minjung theology essentially became, in the 70s, the Korean Christian "vehicle" for expressing their personal and corporate Han that is related to social justice issues connected to a history of war and oppression at the hands of foreigners. I think that Koreans are so religious because of their need to have help to deal with their Han, or sense of "unfinished business," as they say...

A couple of links in the article seem dubious to me, but I'm no expert. First-- the "anti-Japanese sentiment" category. Every Korean I've asked about han says that anti-Japanese sentiments are different. Han is more an internal thing. There is a relationship between the two, and, as mentioned in the article, foreign invasions helped build up the concept of han. It seems to me that putting han in this category cheapens a concept with deeper roots in Korean thought and literature, making it look like ethnic rivalry/nationalism. (An Anglo-American analogy: I've seen han compared to "the blues" in African-American culture. Would it be right to categorize "the blues" as anti-white sentiment among African-Americans? It seems wrong to me. And yet I think the relationship between European- and African-Americans contributed much more to "the blues" than did the Japanese to han.) Second: See also: "Ressentiment" was recently added. Again, I'm not Korean, and I'm no authority, but it seems to me that han and "ressentiment" have some similarities, but that they're are different enough, and, more importantly, concepts in different societies, that "See also"ing within this article is not quite right. I would be in favor of removing both from the article. I have no strong feelings on either one-- Just putting out the questions to see what others think. Dekkappai (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right. [5][6][7][8] Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think there are a lot of insufficient explanations of the concept of Han. It's mostly explained as a deep, ingrained 'feeling.' If the explanations doesn't suffice, maybe there should be hard evidence that can possibly support the claim: i.e. statistical data that shows Koreans are more inclined to anger and other emotional issues, more protests, history of han and when the idea of it permeated in Korean society. The current info under 'History' seems like guess work of the origins and conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hychoi (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Bamnamu: From reading the article, it seems like some aspects of han are rooted in the resentment of Japan (i.e. anti-Japanese sentiment) due to it's colonial past and other parts of it are related to Korean nationalism (which itself has some of its roots in anti Japanese sentiment from when Korea was a Japanese colony). The reason why I added the "anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" category is due to the following parts of the article:

"Han . . . is a concept of an emotion, variously described as some form of . . . resentment . . . that has been said to be a characteristic of Korean culture."

"The idea of han and its association with Korean identity are relatively recent, originating during the Japanese occupation of Korea"

"Han, as a specifically Korean characteristic, did not originally exist prior to the Japanese occupation, but was adopted and popularized by Koreans in the 20th century due to . . . the political promotion of ethnic-national solidarity through a sense of "shared suffering"."

"Han is derived from the Chinese character 恨, which means resentment [or] hatred"

"Han is frequently translated as . . . spite, rancor, . . . [or] resentment"

"Suh Nam-dong described han as "a feeling of unresolved resentment against injustices suffered . . . and an obstinate urge to take revenge and to right the wrong . . . ""

"It has been argued that the current usage of the word han in Korean . . . has acquired ethnonationalist and essentialist tones."

"Ethnic nationalism's processes took the colonial origin of "the beauty of sorrow" and produced han as an ethnonational, biologistic badge of Korean uniqueness."

"the idea of han transformed from a personal sense of . . . resentment to a broader, national experience of unrelenting suffering and injustice". Han was used politically to promote "Korean uniqueness" and ethnic-national solidarity through a sense of "shared suffering"." ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888:

Hi, ParadiseDesertOasis8888. Thank you for your explanation.

I understand your point of view, and respect it. I can see how han can be interpreted that way. However, it's a personal interpretation. If you have a reliable source that interprets it that way, please provide it. I am more than willing to add information about anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea in relation to han to the body of the article if a reliable source can be provided.

As for the sentences you cited: The sentences about resentment, hatred, etc., do not say to whom they're directed. The colonial origin of han can be argued as developing from Japanese anti-Korean sentiment, rather than Korean anti-Japanese sentiment. Han most certainly is related to Korean nationalism, but to associate it with anti-Japanese sentiment is a generalization.

Unfortunately, there aren't that many academic sources that are specifically about han. Furthermore, it's prone to original research. That is why, I believe, we should be strict and ensure that all the content merely presents information from reliable sources, rather than interprets it.

Bamnamu (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Bamnamu: I understand what you're saying about there not being a specifically cited recipient of the aforementioned resentment. However, given that the word originated when Korea was a Japanese colony and that there are still a lot of disputes between Japan and North and South Korea to this day, I don't know what else it could be referring to other than Japan, unless it refers to all of the countries or people that have invaded Korea, which still includes Japan. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: It doesn't have to refer to historical invaders at all. The concept may have originated during the Japanese colonial period, but it didn't develop from anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. It's broad and personal, as briefly explained in the "Definition" section. Bamnamu (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Bamnamu: I guess you're right. I was just assuming that the resentment was/is towards a country that has invaded Korea or done something similar in the past because I don't know what else would cause so many people in a single geographic area to feel the same emotion of resentment. However, since there aren't any sources that explicitly state that, I'll leave the article as it is. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Michael D. Shin: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_(cultural)&diff=957736685&oldid=957736243

John Duncan: 8:10

Bamnamu (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

[9]

• Presenting statements from opinion pieces as facts (WP:NEWSORG)
  • "While there is no direct translation for han in English, it is best described as a generational feeling of having been wronged by a superior agent, manifesting in an emotion that is 'intensely personal, yet carried around collectively, a national torch, a badge of suffering tempered by a sense of resiliency.'"
  • "The concept of han was likely born as a result of Korea's history of war, suffering, and poverty"
• Introducing bias (WP:NPOV)
  • "it is best described as"
• Adding unsourced content (WP:OR)
  • "and was exacerbated during the Japanese occupation of Korea and the Korean War"
• Deleting cited information
  • Way too much.

[10]

• WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • "Although it is believed"
  • "although earlier texts indicate"
• WP:WEASEL
  • "Although it is believed"
  • "it can be argued"
• WP:CLAIM
  • "While some claim"
  • "Some claim that"

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kimchi Temper and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Kimchi Temper until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply