¹ The special issue of The Quarterly Changbi (Spring, 2019) as well as Ch'otpurŭi nunŭro 3.1undongŭl poda (Looking at March First Through the Candlelight Revolution), ed. Lee Kihoon (Seoul: Changbi Publishers, 2019) answer such calls for reexamining the March First Movement.

² Han Sŭnghun, “‘3.1undongŭi segyesajŏk ŭiŭi'ŭi purwanjŏnhan chŏngnipkwa kyunyŏl” (“How the meaning of the March 1st movement in ‘World history’ was incompletely established and then stuck”), Yŏksawa hyŏnshil (Quarterly Review of Korean History) 108 (2018): 238-39.

³ Im Hyŏngt'aek, “1919nyŏn tongasia, 3.1undonggwa 5.4undong: tongashia kŭndae ikkiŭi pangbŏmnonjŏk sŏsŏl” (“East Asia in 1919, the March First Movement and May Fourth Movement: An Introduction to Methodologies in Reading East Asian Modernity”), in 1919 nyŏn 3wŏl 1ire mutta (Inquiries on March First, 1919), ed. Park Hŏnho and Ryu Junpil (Seoul: Sŏnggyun'gwandaehakkyoch'ulp'anbu, 2009), 35.

⁴ Baik Youngseo, Haekshimhyŏnjangesŏ tongasiarŭl tashi mutta (Rethinking East Asian History from Core Locations) (Seoul: Changbi Publishers, 2013), 318.

⁵ A colony refers to a country that is under direct rule of another country and is deprived of its sovereignty. A semi-colony is not directly ruled by another, but its sovereignty is restricted by foreign powers that exert power through unequal treaties or by partitioning spheres of influence.

⁶ See my article that compares March First and May Fourth. “Yŏktonghanŭn dongasiaŭi 1919: hyŏngmyŏngŭi gijŏmŭrosŏŭi 3·1undonggwa 5·4 undong” (“East Asia on the Move in 1919—The Revolutionary Movements of March 1st and May 4^th”), Kaenyŏmgwa Sot'ong (Concepts and Communication) 23 (2019): 7-37.

⁷ Double Project theory is a creative theory that seeks to transcend the dichotomy between two attitudes toward modernism: modern characteristics are either seen as positive values that must be attained (modernism) or as old legacies that should be discarded (postmodernism). This theory contributes to overcoming simplistic interpretations of “invasion vs. resistance” in our understanding of history. For more information, see Paik Nakchung, “The Double Project of Modernity,” New Left Review (September/October 2015).

Song Hogŭn et al., Shiminsahoeŭi kihoekkwa tojŏn (The Programs and Challenges of Civil Society) (Seoul: Minŭmsa, 2016). Paik Nak-chung et al., Munmyŏngŭi taejŏnhwanŭl kongbuhada (Examining the Great Shifts of Civilization) (Seoul: Changbi Publishers, 2018).

⁸ Marking the 70^th anniversary of March First, Korean historians published the definitive book on the movement that interprets the event in accordance with the common people's views on history. (See 3.1 Minjok'haebangundong yŏn'gu (Studies on the National Liberation Movement of 3·1) edited by Han'gukyŏksayŏn'guhoe (Korean History Society) and Yŏksamunjeyŏn'guso (The Institute for Korean Historical Studies) (Seoul: Ch'ŏngnyŏnsa Publishers, 1989). However, changes have taken place in the study of the March First Movement since the 1990s as postcolonial and postmodern frames of reference dominated the field of history. This change brought about the so-called cultural historical turn, which led scholars to emphasize the individualized and polyphonic subjectivity of the populace. These scholars highlight the lived realities of the people as well as the media that represented such realities. [See Heo Youngran, Han'gug kŭndaesa yŏn'guŭi “munhwasajŏng chŏnhwan”: Yŏksa taejunghwa, shingminji kŭndaesŏng, kyŏnghŏmsegyeŭi yŏksahwa (“A ‘Cultural Historical Turn’ in the Study of the Early Modern History of Korea - The Popularization of History, Colonial Modernity, and the Historicization of the World of Experience”), Minjongmunhwayŏn'gu 53 (2010): 92-93]. Although I utilize the results of these previous studies on March First that have generated a diverse understanding of the event, I am wary of the current scholarly trends' lack of structural consciousness, which might lead to overlooking colonial contradictions and making light of previous experiences of movements and thoughts.

⁹ Min Tu-ki, Chunggugŭi konghwahyŏngmyŏng (The Chinese Republican Revolution) (Seoul: Chishiksanŏpsa, 1999), particularly the first section of the conclusion. He reads the 1911 Revolution and May Fourth as the first and second Republican Revolution, i.e., as revolutions on a continuum.

¹⁰ Kwon Tae-eok, “1910nyŏndae ilcheŭi ‘munmyŏnghwa’ t'ongch'iwa han'gugindŭrŭi inshik: 3.1undongŭi ‘kŏjoksŏng’ wŏnin kyumyŏngŭl wihan hanaŭi shiron” (“The Civilization' project of Japan and Koreans' perception in the 1910s: how the March First Independent Movement could become nationwide”), Han'gungmunhwa (Korean Culture) 61 (2013): 357-59.

¹¹ Cha Seung-ki, “P'yehŏŭi sasang: ‘segye chŏnjaeng’ kwa shingminji Chosŏn, hokŭn ‘pujae ŭishik'e taehayŏ” (“Thoughts in a Wasteland: World War I and colonial Korea, or regarding ‘absence-awareness’”), Munhakkwa sahoe (Literature and Society) (2014): 406-431, 411.

¹² Lee Taehoon, “1910-20 nyŏndae ch'o che 1-ch'a segyedaejŏnŭi sogaeyangsanggwa nonŭijihyŏng” (“Attitudes and Perceptions about the First World War by Members of the Joseon Society during the 1910s and 20s”), Sahakyŏn'gu (The Review of Korean History) 105 (2012): 187-227, 213.

¹³ Sebastian Conrad and Dominic Sachsenmaier, Competing Visions of World Order: Global Moments and Movements, 1880s-1930s (London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 9, 13.

¹⁴ Cha Seung-ki, Ibid., 411.

¹⁵ Song Jiye, “”Minjokchagyŏr“ŭi suyonggwa 2.8 tongnibundong” (“The Translation of ‘Self-Determination’ and the Feb. 8th Independence Movement”) Tongyangjŏngch'isasangsa (History of East Asian Political Thought) 11, no. 1 (2012): 179-209, 199.

¹⁶ “Moon Changhwan Shinmunjosŏ” (“Interrogation Report on Moon Changhwan”), Hanminjoktongnibundongsajaryojip (Anthology of Historical Documents on the Korean Independence Movement) 13 (Seoul: Kuksap'yŏnch'anwiwŏnhoe, 1990), 158.

¹⁷ Chung Yong-wook, “3.1undongsa yŏn'guŭi ch'oegŭn tonghyanggwa panghyangsŏng” (“Recent trends and directionality in historical studies on the March First Movement”), Yŏksawa hyŏnshil (Quarterly Review of Korean History) 110 (2018): 269-304, 295.

¹⁸ Jang Seokman, “3.1undongesŏ chonggyonŭn muŏshin'ga” (“Religion and March First”), in 1919 nyŏn 3wŏl 1ire mutta (Inquiries on March First, 1919), Ibid., 211.

¹⁹ Most Korean history textbooks used in high schools offer this particular narrative. Lee Jeongeun, 3.1tongnibundongŭi chibangshiwie kwanhan yŏn'gu (A Study on the Demonstrations in the Rural Regions during the March First Movement) (Seoul: Kuk'akcharyowŏn, 2009), 340.

²⁰ Mansei was the rallying cry of March First; it can literally be translated as “ten thousand years” or “long live [Korea].” Bae Seongjun, “3.1undongŭi nongminbonggijŏng yangsang” (“The Aspect of Rural Uprisings during the March First Movement”), in 1919 nyŏn 3wŏl 1ire mutta (Inquiries on March First, 1919), Ibid., 297.

²¹ Kim Youngbum, “3.1undongesŏŭi p'ongnyŏkkwa kŭ hamŭi” (“Violence during the March First Movement and its Implications”), Chŏngshinmunhwayŏn'gu (Korean Studies Quarterly) 41, no. 4 (2018): 67-104, 86, 93.

²² For discussions on “peace from below” rather than “top-down peace,” see the Kwon Heonik interview “1919 nyŏnŭi segyesajŏk ŭimirŭl toesaeginŭn ‘p'yŏnghwa yŏn'gu’ p'iryo” (“‘Peace Studies’ That Need to Reconsider the World Historical Significance of 1919”), Han'gyŏre (Han'gyŏre Daily), September 14, 2018.

²³ Kwon Bodŭrae, “3.1undongŭi pam” (“The Night of the March First Movement”), in Tongashiaŭi 'kŭndae'chegam (“Modern” Experiences of East Asia), ed. Park Gyeongseok (Seoul: Han Ul, 2018), 82-109, 102.

²⁴ Cho Kyŏng-dal, Minjunggwa yut'op'ia (The Populace and Utopia), trans. Heo Youngran (Seoul: Yŏksabip'yŏngsa, 2009), 243.

²⁵ Kwon Bodŭrae, “‘Manseŭi yut'op'ia: 3.1undonge issŏ pokkukkwa shinsegye” (“The Utopianism of Manse - The Restoration of Sovereignty and the Idea of a New World during the March First Movement”) Han'guk'akyŏn'gu (The Journal of Korean Studies) 38 (2015): 193-226, 204.

²⁶ Lee Ki-hoon, “3.1undonggwa kitpal” (“The March First Movement and the Flag”), in Ch'otpurŭi nunŭro 3.1undongŭl poda (Looking at March First Through the Candlelight Revolution), Ibid..

²⁷ Im Hyungtaek, “Han'gungmunhaksarŭl sagohanŭn hanaŭi kil: minjungundong, kongnonjang” (“Another Way to Consider the History of Korean Literature - The Minjung Movement, Public Sphere and Justice”) Han'gukkojŏnmunhakyŏn'gu (The Study of Korean Classical Literature) 54 (2018): 5-24.

²⁸ Cho Kyŏng-dal, Ibid., 240; Bae Seongjun, Ibid., 310.

²⁹ Chun Junghwan, “Somun, pangmun, shinmun, kyŏngmun: 3.1undong shigiŭi midiŏwa chuch'esŏng” (“Rumors, Gossip, Newspapers, and Appeals: The Media at the Time of the March First Movement and the People's National Subjecthood”), in 1919 nyŏn 3wŏl 1ire mutta (Inquiries on March First, 1919), 247-288, 259.

³⁰ Kim Heungkyu, Kŭndaeŭi t'ŭkkwŏnhwarŭl nŏmŏsŏ (Beyond the Privileging of the Modern) (Seoul: Changbi Publishers, 2013), 179.

³¹ Lee Ki-hoon, “Ilche shigi konghwadamnonŭi hwakchang: (minjong)taep'yoŭi kwannyŏmŭl chungshimŭro” (“The Growth of Republican Discourse during the Japanese Imperial Period: With ‘National Representation’ as a Core Concept”), (paper in conference volume, Socheon Center for Korean Studies at Seoul National University, Seoul, November 30, 2018).

³² See Baik Yongseo, “Jungguk Hyundaesaeseoui Minjujuewa Gukminuiheo Undong” (“Democracy and the National Congress Movements in the Modern History of China”), Inmungwahak (Journal of Humanities) 84, no. 10 (2002): 161-180. In this article, I argue that East Asian scholars interested in the National Congress movements start off their research by “criticizing the representative democracy that we see today, in lieu of the unique realities in which they live,” and are often motivated by “their own desire for an alternative model for democracy” (169). See also Yu Yong-tae's “20segi Jungguk'ŭi Minjujŭi Gusang,” Noksaekpyungron (January-February issue 2018): 21-33. Yu re-examines China's democracy and suggests that the professional representative system can be regarded as more faithful to the principles of democratic republicanism as it enhances the representativeness and directness of democracy.

³³ Kim Jeong-in, “3.1undonggwa imshijŏngbu pŏpt'ongsŏng inshigŭi chŏngch'isŏnggwa hangmunsŏng” (“The Politicalness and Scholarliness of the March First Movement and Provisional Government Legitimacy Awareness”), Sŏulgwa yŏksa (Seoul and History) 99 (2018): 206-242, 234; Kong Im-sun, “3.1undongŭi yŏksajŏng kiŏkkwa paeban, kŭrigo kyesŭngŭl tullŏssan inyŏmjŏngch'i: 3.1undongŭi pop'yŏn(juŭi)jŏng chip'yŏnggwa kwaso/gwaingŭi taep'yosŏng” (“Historical memory and the betrayal of the 3.1 Movement, and ideological politics about its succession”), Han'gukkŭndaemunhakyŏn'gu (Korean Modern Literature Studies) 24 (2011): 197-236, 221.

³⁴ Kim Jeong-in, Onŭlgwa majuhan 3.1undong (The March First Movement Face to Face with Today) (Seoul: Ch'aekkwahamkke, 2019), 202-208.

³⁵ Lee Nam-ju, “3·1 undong, ch'otpulhyŏngmyŏng gŭrigo ‘Jilisagŏn’” (“The March First Movement, the Candlelight Revolution, and ‘the Event of Truth’”) Ch'anghakkwabip'yŏng (The Quarterly Changbi) 47, no. 1 (2019): 61-78, 187.

³⁶ Kwon Bodŭrae, “‘Manseŭi yut'op'ia: 3.1undonge issŏ pokkukkwa shinsegye” (“‘Manse’ Utopia: Restoring the Nation and the New World during the March First Movement”), 212.

³⁷ Cho Kyŏng-dal, Ibid., 230.

³⁸ Some regard the significance of March First as an occasion during which Confucianist universalism—which has its roots in hopes for an ideal society of great harmony— i.e., “civilizationism” and national self-determinism converged. See Miyajima Hiroshi, “Minjokchuŭiwa munmyŏngjuŭi: 3.1 undonge taehan saeroun ihaerŭl wihayŏ” (“Nationalism and civilizationism: toward a new understanding of March First”), in 1919 nyŏn 3wŏl 1ire mutta (Inquiries on March First, 1919), op. cit., 67.

³⁹ Kim Jeong-in, “3.1 undongŭi minjujuui hyŏngmyŏngsŏng munje” (“The Question of a Democratic Revolution during the March First Movement”), (paper in conference volume from the March First Revolution 95th Anniversary Academic Conference, Center for Historical Truth and Justice, Seoul, February 26, 2014), 139.

⁴⁰ Kim Jinho, “3.1chŏlgwa ‘t'aegŭkki chip'oe’: irŏbŏrin minjungŭi kiŏk” (“March First and the ‘Taegukgi Demonstrations’: The Forgotten Memories of the Populace”), in Ch'otpurŭi nunŭro 3.1undongŭl poda (Looking at March First Through the Candlelight Revolution), Ibid.

⁴¹ Ryu Si-hyun, “1920nyŏndae samirundonge kwanhan kiŏng: shigan, changso, kŭrigo ‘minjong/minjung’” (“Memories of the March First Movement in the 1920s: Time, Place, and ‘Nation/Masses’”), Yŏksawa hyŏnshil (Quarterly Review of Korean History) 74 (2009): 183-185.

⁴² “Ilbonch'in'guyŏ(sang)” (“Dear Japanese Friends, Volume 1”), Tongailbo, March 4, 1921; Ilcheha tongailbo apsu nonsŏlchip (Collection of Dong-A Ilbo Editorials Seized under the Japanese Empire), (Seoul: Tongailbosa, 1978), 30; Ryu Sihyun, lbid., 191.

⁴³ Paik Nak-chung, inspired by Sin Tongyŏp's poem “Who Says that He Saw the Sky” where the poet sees the Tonghak resistance movement and the April 19^th Revolution as related events. He uses the term “people who saw the sky” to describe the primary agents of the Candlelight Revolution of 2016-17. Paik Nak-chung, “Hanŭrŭl pon twie muŏsŭl halkka” (“What to Do After Seeing Heaven”), Ch'angbijugannonp'yŏng (Creative Criticism Weekly Commentary), December 27, 2018.

⁴⁴ Han'gukyŏksayŏn'guhoe (Korean History Society) and Yŏksamunjeyŏn'guso (The Institute for Korean Historical Studies), Ibid., 256-257, 425-429.

⁴⁵ See Baik Youngseo, Chungguk'yŏndaedaehangmunhwayŏn'gu (A Study of China's Modern University Culture) (Seoul: Ilchogak, 1994). The conclusion is particularly relevant here.

⁴⁶ I must of course note that the Japanese government, which experienced WWI as a total war, gravely felt the need to establish a stable resource pipeline in the 1920s. This was a major reason Japan took to a more conciliatory approach to colonial rule. However, this does not mean that the influence that the Korean resistance had on Japan was less significant.

⁴⁷ Paik Nak-chung, “South Korea's Candlelight Revolution and the Future of the Korean Peninsula,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 16, no. 23 (2018): n. pag.

⁴⁸ Cho Kyŏng-dal, “Shiberia shuppei to komesŏdŏ” (“The Siberian Expedition and the Rice Riots”), Reikishi chirikyŏiku (History Geography Education) 880 (2018): 4-9, 6-8.

⁴⁹ Yeom Sang-seop, “Choyaŭi chegongege hosoham” (“A Plea to Everyone in the Whole Nation”), in Yŏmsangsŏm munjang chŏnjip 1: 1918-1928 (The Complete Works of Yeom Sang-seop, Volume 1: 1918-1928), ed. Han Kihyung and Lee Hyeryeong (Seoul: Somyŏngch'ulp'an, 2013), 48.

⁵⁰ Irie Akira, 20segiŭi jŏnjaenggwa p'yunghwa (War and Peace in the 20^th Century), trans. Cho Jin-gu and Lee Jong-guk (Seoul: Yeonam Publishers, 2016), 105, 106.

⁵¹ Ryu Sihyun, Ibid., 192.

⁵² Hŏ Su, “Che1ch'a segyedaejŏn chongjŏn hu kaejoronŭi hwaksan'gwa han'guk chishigin” (“The Dissemination of Post-World War I Reconstruction Discourse and Korean Intellectuals”), in 1919 nyŏn 3wŏl 1ire mutta (Inquiries on March First, 1919), 151.

⁵³ Unknown author, “Munjeŭi haegyŏrŭn Chagyŏrinya t'agyŏrinya” (“Whether the solution of the problem will be determined by ourselves or by others”), Kaebyŏk (Great Opening) 33 (1923): 6-13, 3.

⁵⁴ Choi Suil, ‘Kaebyŏk’ yŏn'gu (“Great Opening” Studies) (Seoul: Somyŏngch'ulp'an, 2008), 399-403.

⁵⁵ Baik Jiwoon, “Munmyŏngŭi chŏnhwan'gwa Segyeŭi kaejo: 1ch'a taejŏn chik'u ”K'aijoo“ŭi Munmyŏngnon” (“Toward a Transformation of Civilization and the Reconstruction of the World: Civilization Discourses of Kaizō right after World-War I”), Tongbanghakchi (The Journal of Korean Studies) 173 (2016): 135-159, 156.

⁵⁶ Lee Taehoon, Ibid., 225.

⁵⁷ For this three-party aspect, see Paik Nak-chung et al., Ibid., 242; Jo Sunghwan, Han'gung kŭndaeŭi t'ansaeng: Kaehwaesŏ kaebyŏkŭro (The Birth of Korean Modernity: From Reform to the Great Opening) (Seoul: Moshinŭnsaramdŭl, 2018), 109-110.

⁵⁸ Hur categorizes discourses about alternative civilization as a branch of cultural reformism, and points out that advocates of such discourses did not do enough to pave the way to realize an alternative civilization through preparing necessary systems and resources. However, he does suggest that such past discourses on alternative civilization can be understood as precious theoretical assets. Hur Soo, “20 segi ch'o Hanguk'ŭi P'yŏnghwaron” (“The Theory of Peace in Korea in the Early 20th Century”), Yŏksabip'yŏng (Critical Review of History) 106 (2014): 37-68, 63.

⁵⁹ Cho Kyŏng-dal 趙景達, “Dogmas and Practices of Buddhist Society in Colonial Korea” 植民地 朝鮮における佛法硏究會の敎理と活動, in War, Disasters, and Popular Religions in Modern East Asia 戰爭·災害と近代東アジアの民衆宗敎, ed. Takeuchi Husasi (Tokyo: Yujisa, 2014). Cho categorizes the religions of the time into four types: those involved in the great revival movement, those that reinforced apocalyptic superstitions, those that carried out a political movement, and those that performed the simultaneous tasks of saving the inner world and enabling social contributions.

⁶⁰ Paik Nak-chung et al., Ibid., 243, 245-48.

⁶¹ Paik Nak-chung, “T'ongilsasangŭrosŏŭi songjŏngsanŭi kŏn'gungnon” (“Song Jeong-san's Treatise on Nation Building as an Ideology for Unification”), in Munmyŏngŭi taejŏnhwan'gwa huch'ŏn'gaebyŏk (The Great Shift in Civilization and the Great Opening) (Seoul: Moshinŭnsaramdŭl, 2016).

⁶² See Paik Nak-chung, “3·1 gwa hanbandosik naramandŭlgi” (“‘March the First’ and Nation Building Korean-Style”), Changgakkwabip'yŏng 47 no. 2 (2019): 314-17. This article proposes a transformative middle way—distinguished from both extremes—that fundamentally changes, rather than reforms, the Japanese colonial order/system (so that the change would result in Korea's independence).

⁶³ Ahn Hoe-nam, “P'okp'ungŭi yŏksa” (“A Tumultuous History”) (April, 1947), in Han'guksosŏlmunhaktaegye (An Outline of Korean Novels) 24 (Seoul: Tongach'ulp'ansa, 1995), 527; Chang Ilsun, “Sangdaerŭl pyŏnhwashik'imyŏ hamkke” (“Changing the Other and With the Other”), in Nanŭn mich'ŏ mollanne kŭdaega nayŏttanŭn kŏsŭl (I Had Not Realized, Thou Was I), ed. Kim Ik-rok (Seoul: Shigolsaenghwal, 2012), 113.

⁶⁴ Kwon Bodŭrae, “1910nyŏndaeŭi ‘hyŏngmyŏng’: 3.1undong chŏnyaŭi kaenyŏmgwa yongbŏbŭl chungshimŭro” (“The Transformation of ‘Revolution’ in 1910 Korea”), Kaenyŏmgwa sot'ong (Concept and Communication) 15 (2015): 47-81, 68-69, 76.

⁶⁵ Lee Junsik, “‘Undong'inga ‘hyŏngmyŏng'inga: ‘3.1hyŏngmyŏngŭi chaeinshik” (“‘Movement’ or ‘Revolution‘?: Rethinking the March First Revolution”), (paper in conference volume from the March First Revolution 95th Anniversary Academic Conference), 42-56.

⁶⁶ This notion is indebted to Paik Nak-chung who puts much emphasis on the current nature of the April 19 Revolution (1960) and thereby calls it an “Unfinished Revolution.” He addresses three criteria as the basis for his argument. See Paik Nak-chung, “4.19ŭi yŏksajŏk ŭiŭiwa hyŏnjaesŏng” (“The Historical Meaning and Presentness of 4·19”), in Pundanch'eje pyŏnhyŏgŭi kongbugil (Studies on the Transformation in the Division System) (Seoul: Ch'angjakkwabip'yŏngsa, 1994), 49-67, 53-54.

⁶⁷ Matsuo Takayoshi, “Taishŏ Demok‘ŭrashiwa 3·1 dongnip’ undong” (“The Taishŏ democracy era and the March First Independence Movement”), in 3·1 undonggwa 1919nyŏnŭi segyesajŏk' ŭimi (The March First Movement and the World Historical Significance of 1919), ed. Geng Yunzhi et al. (Seoul: Dongbugayŏksajaedan, 2010), 125-142, 126.

⁶⁸ Cho Kyŏng-dal 趙景達, “Shiberia shuppei to komesŏdŏ” (“The Siberian Expedition and the Rice Riots”), 8. It should be noted that there were activist forces like Yoshino Sakujooh (吉野 作造)—or enlightenment clubs he led such as 黎明會—who tried to understand the two movements and argued for a reformation of the empire. These people thus showed an exceptionally international “sense of the other.” The historical meaning of their existence must be acknowledged. Some scholars argue that their arguments for a reformed Japan and an alliance in East Asia should be appreciated. See Yonetani Masafumi 米谷匡史, “The March First Independence Movement, May Fourth Movement and the Democracy of Imperial Japan” 三·一獨立運動, 五·四運動と帝國日本のデモクラシー, Yoksajirigyoyuk (Journal of History Education) 891 (2019): 28-33, 33.

⁶⁹ Meng Zhen (Fu Sinian) 孟眞(傅斯年, “Chaoxian-duliyundongzhongzhi-xinjiaoxun” 朝鮮獨立運動中之新敎訓 (“The New Lessons of Korea's Independence Movement”), Xinchao (新潮) 1. 4 (April 1, 1919). Meng Zhen was the leader of the student movement at Beijing University. He evaluated the March First Movement as an “epoch-making revolution,” which left us three lessons: it was a non-violent revolution, you can actualize a revolution in spite of knowing that it is impossible, and it was a pure student revolution.

⁷⁰ See To Chinsun, “Yŏksawa kiŏk: kŏn'guk‘yŏndowa yŏnho, kŭ chŏngch'ijŏk’ hamŭi” (“History and Memory: The Era Name, National Foundation Year, and Its Political Implications”), Yŏksabip'yŏng (Critical Review of History) 126 (2019): 393-422. Doh notes that the March First Movement, the establishment of the Provisional Government, and the founding of the Republic of Korea are “separate issues in different dimensions” when we examine them from the “wider perspective of the entire Korean peninsula.” He further notes that we must ponder ways to remember the three events from a more open and broader perspective—a perspective that will enable the South and North to communicate better.