“The incident is now famous for the brutal overreaction of the ROK Army when it retook the city.”

The brutality of the army came long before the retaking of the city. Of the total official figures for the dead (191 known fatalities – 164 civilians, 23 soldiers, 4 policemen), 12 died between May 18 and May 20, 62 died on May 21, when troops opened fire on protesters, of which 54 died by gunshot, which was followed by “thugs”, as you call them, taking up arms against their own government’s troops. At least 64 died on the outskirts of Kwangju as soldiers fired on cars, trucks and buses leaving or entering the city (sometimes at night) and other passersby, killing at least 65 civilians and 12 soldiers (that’s right – on two occasions soldiers opened fire on other military units, resulting in 12 deaths and around 40 wounded). Only 26 died during the final battle. These figures do not include 40 official missing and 100 or more missing who are unrecognized by the government.

As for the Time article, worth noting is that their reporter on the scene was Korean, and most Korean reporters were distrusted because the media wasn’t reporting with any accuracy what was going on in Kwangju (due to censorship). Perhaps because he was treated so badly he chose to paint the demonstrators in the worst light possible. Foreign reporters have different descriptions of Kwangju than seen in that Time article. Calling them ‘thugs’ has you mouthing the disinformation that Chun was spreading during and after the uprising (as does calling it an “incident” – the term Chun used to hide the significance of what had happened there).

Keep in mind that this disinformation included Chun making clear to people in Kwangju that the US had approved sending in the paratroopers whose brutality set off the uprising (untrue; the US had no control over them), as well as the ruse of asking Wickham if the 20th division could be moved to Kwangju (when there was no need – the 20th division had been removed from the CFC two days before the uprising even began, approved by Wickham’s second in command (a Korean) because Wickham was in the US at the time). Chun would also later nearly destroy Wickham’s career.

Why is it that the disinformation that paints the protesters as “thugs” is so easily believed, but that painting the U.S. as responsible is quickly dismissed? If any one person is responsible for anti-Americanism in Korea, it’s Chun Doo-hwan and the lies he spread in 1980.