"Japan-Centric" US View of Asian History
Beckie Yi
(Jason Dandy) wrote:
:It must be acknowledged, though, that the Japanese DID provide the korean
: penninsula with
: a decent base infrastructure for economic growth (minus highly trained
: managers, engineers, etc). . . . [cut]
: Even my korean econ. professor, Koo Bon Ho (big time korean econ advisor
: for all sorts of planning commissions in korea, esp. during time of
: pak chung hee), admits that some results of the Japanese occupation were
: beneficial.
This is the Japanese point of view. A lot of Korean politicians and
professionals, particularly those who were educated during the occupation,
have been infected by this viewpoint due to the persistence of Japanese
influence beyond the occupation. This influence has remained strongest in
the educational system (once part of the Japanese indoctrination machine),
where it's embalmed in many books that are still quoted. But just because
some brainwashed professor says it doesn't make it true. Here's my
view.
The results of the occupation, such as the Japanese building of
infrastructure in Korea, can only be called "beneficial" if Koreans
couldn't have done it themselves without the Japanese. But how can anyone
know what Koreans could have accomplished by themselves in the absence of
the Japanese occupiers? Actually, if our country hadn't been occupied,
we could have built our own infrastructure *better* than the Japanese,
because we could have avoided having our resources plundered and the
profits from Korean labor shipped back to Japan in the process. It would
have been *really* beneficial if the Japanese had stayed on their islands
and kept their damned infrastructure to themselves!
Many Western students of Korea overlook this point about what Korea could
have accomplished by herself. They assume that just because Korea was one
step behind Japan before the occupation, we could never have caught up on
our own without the occupation. In retrospect, what Korea has achieved
*in spite of* the damage done by the Japanese (and by the partition of the
country, which is partially attributable to the effects of the
occupation), shows that we could have surpassed Japan a long time ago if
it hadn't been for the occupation and its "benefits."
Beckie Yi
Brendon A. Carr
Beckie Yi <yib...@cts.com> wrote:
>The results of the occupation, such as the Japanese building of
>infrastructure in Korea, can only be called "beneficial" if Koreans
>couldn't have done it themselves without the Japanese. But how can anyone
>know what Koreans could have accomplished by themselves in the absence of
>the Japanese occupiers? Actually, if our country hadn't been occupied,
>we could have built our own infrastructure *better* than the Japanese,
>because we could have avoided having our resources plundered and the
>profits from Korean labor shipped back to Japan in the process...
Well, what about the fact that Choson had, to 1890, exhibited so little
interest in the outside world that it earned the nickname "Hermit
Kingdom," and that Yi Dynasty Korea had such a moribund economy to go
along with the isolationist impulse? How does that jibe with your idea
that Korea was champing at the bit to whip the infrastructure into shape?
Had Korea been left alone, who can say the whole peninsula wouldn't be as
poor as Burma is today, 'cause they were about equally-bad-off in 1890.
>In retrospect, what Korea has achieved *in spite of* the damage done by
>the Japanese... shows that we could have surpassed Japan a long time
>ago if it hadn't been for the occupation and its "benefits."
You're also disregarding demographics.
BAC
shw...@vms1.gmu.edu
> ______________________
> : ((Jason's (my) response begins here))
> : a wise man once said, "when you know not whereof you speak, your mouth is
> : best used for chewing." take a big bite.
I doubt that you were serious enough when you started your statement with such
a mocking phrase--which was to make your weak opinion sound stronger.
> : you claim that korea would have done "just fine" developing her own infra-
> : structure. pretty much every korea scholar disagrees.
ahh.. What scholars? The old fat-heads that took all the advantages during the
Japanese occupation? Yeah, it was kinda ad that we couldn't clear up those
people even after our independence till now--which was same to some of the
bureaucrats. They may well have thankful attitudes to whatever Japan had done.
If not for the support of Japanese government, it wouldn't have been possible
for them to take their place so safely. But the views are changing and the news
generation scholars are coming up with different theories.
[...]
>: Korea, as a previous poster pointed out (thanks), was called
> : the "hermit kingdom" for its flat out refusal to open its ports to trade.
> : it was JAPAN who finally forced korea to open its ports, followed
> : by a number of western nations.
Some had thought that it would be the best decision to block the trade while,
on the other hand, realizing the situation by getting acquainted with the
western civilization through China and other surrounding nations. But does
that justify one nation to violate the autonomy of another? What Japan had
done was to take adventage of this situation and colonize Korea before she
voluntarily develops herself.
> : Jung-en Woo, author of "Race to the Swift," a book on the economic miracle
> : of the Republic of Korea, states (on page 25 of that book),
[...]
> : earlier, she states (on page 23), "These years of surplus [1914-1920]
> : also started the industrialization of the colonies and other spheres of
> : influence, with an estimated Y1.8 billion of Japanese private capital
> : invested overseas in 1914-1924--most of it went to China, Manchuria, and
> : Korea."
Why would they "invest" their pricious private money to the neighborhoods
they disliked for centuries? For charity and brotherhood? Look at your map and
draw the line from Korea to Manchuria and to China. Why would anyone give up
some portion of themselves for the brightest future they'd have? They were
eager for the "dream-come-true" future, weren't they? (Europeans didn't
hesitate to kill some of their people in order to swallow the Africa.)
Besides, when Japan had built all those infrastructures in Korea, were they for
the poor and ordinary "chosen" people? The phone lines were used for the
military purpose and the raliroads headed to the northern manchuria and to the
coal mining regions.
> : probably a good part of the reason many koreans don't acknowledge these
> : BENEFITS is that the majority of heavy industial sites and power plants
> : were located in north korea, while most of the high agricultural and
> : light manufacturing output came from the south; light industry was treated
> : as immaterial during hte HCI drive of the 70's.
It sounds like we are envying North Korea for having all the resources that
we--south--don't have. I wonder why Notherners don't thank the "benevolence"
that Japan had done. Anyway, besides that, what had the Japanese done with
the high agriculture of Korea? Did they feed us? No...looking back to the
hunger-death statistic of the time, we may grieve as much as we do for the
people of Somalia now. Meanwhile, Japan, suddenly had enough food ...even to
feed their beasty WWII soldiers.
Korean "economic miracle" owes almost nothing to Japan. Do you think all
Koreans are IQ 65 morons who couldnt' even look after themselves? Generally,
our economic miracle refers to that of '80-90's. Do you have to reach back to
over 50 and 60 years ago to explain it and ignore the rest whole 50 years from
then? Korea had lost most of the things during the Japanese occupation through
WWII...and after the Korean War ended, we had "NOTHING" left. Even the politics
were rotten by the remaining power structure of ex-Japan-philes. Our only
property was our value of "education" which has its root to the ancient Koreans
and of confucianism. Koreans were willing to give up food for "knowledge" and
this had enabled the present economic success. Korean history did not end up
in 1945, the followed 50 years of blood shedding struggles--both politically and
economically--led us to now.
But please, dont open your electronic mouth until
> : you are going to state facts, not just spew antijapanese sentiment
> : that YOU are brainwashed into believing.
Facts? what facts? fact to your eyes or those of every others?
You are the one who is brainwashed. You believe what you "WANT" to believe
without considering other aspects..coz, you depend on some portions provided by
"English Translated" Korean history books...written by whomever "YOU" like to
trust. Or, is it that, you don't want to accept the idea that any individual
nation can prosper by "it-self" and not by the help of their stronger neighbors?
sukyoung
Milan Hejtmanek
(Jason Dandy) wrote:
> I am without a doubt
> NOT saying the Japanese should have invaded and occupied. I am
> NOT saying that the overall effects (when weighed, pros and cons) were
> beneficial. I am saying there were some things the japanese did that
> could be argued (VERY STRONGLY) were not harmful and were, in fact,
> beneficial.
Toad Yun in Ch'ae Man-sik's satirical masterpiece, T'aepy'ong ch'onha
(Peace Under Heaven), would *quite agree* concerning those "beneficial"
aspects of colonial rule.
To wit:
ł ŚThe age of doom, when thieves took your property, and your life was worth no
more than a flyąs, those days are behind us! Look around you! Thereąs a
policeman on every street corner, and every village is governed fair and square!
What more can you want than this?
łDonąt ever forget to thank your lucky stars we live in this wonderful world,
where the Japanese have mobilized a huge army, hundreds of thousands of
soldiers, to protect us Koreans! Itąs a world of peace where we can keep what
is ours and live in comfort! Peace under heaven, thatąs what it is!ą ˛
(Using Chung Kyung-Ja's fine new translation, published by M. E. Sharpe).
It's really amazing that Koreans aren't more **grateful** for those acts of
unintended generosity. . . .
--
Milan Hejtmanek
John H. Kim
> In article <3ka057$2...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, buz...@umich.edu
> (Jason Dandy) wrote:
> > I am without a doubt
> > NOT saying the Japanese should have invaded and occupied. I am
> > NOT saying that the overall effects (when weighed, pros and cons) were
> > beneficial. I am saying there were some things the japanese did that
> > could be argued (VERY STRONGLY) were not harmful and were, in fact,
> > beneficial.
>"Don靖 ever forget to thank your lucky stars we live in this wonderful world,
> where the Japanese have mobilized a huge army, hundreds of thousands of
> soldiers, to protect us Koreans! It零 a world of peace where we can keep
> what is ours and live in comfort! Peace under heaven, that零 what it is!"
> It's really amazing that Koreans aren't more **grateful** for those acts of
> unintended generosity. . . .
[The quote directly above was intended sarcastically]
[Topic is what would Korea have been like if Japan hadn't colonized it]
You guys are arguing hypotheticals. How many more people would've
died in WWII if the U.S. hadn't dropped the atomic bombs? What if JFK
hadn't been shot? What would have happened if the U.N. hadn't driven
Iraq out of Kuwait? How would the economy be doing if Bush had been
re-elected President?
These are all fun to think about and sometimes instructive to analyze,
but unless you have a time machine and can change the past, it's pointless
to argue about it. Nobody knows the answer.
_______________________________________________________________________
|\ ______________________________________________________________________\
| | |
| | John H. Kim "Just try telling the IRS you don't feel like |
| | jo...@mit.edu 'contributing' this year come April" - Bob Dole |
| | jo...@uni.uiuc.edu on Bill Clinton's avoidance of the word "taxes." |
| | Keeper of the Fishing FAQ ftp://tuna.mit.edu/pub/fishing/faq |
\|_______________________________________________________________________|
gary dean anderson
>In article <3ka057$2...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, buz...@umich.edu (Jason Dandy) writes:
>
> Korean "economic miracle" owes almost nothing to Japan. Do you think all
>Koreans are IQ 65 morons who couldnt' even look after themselves? Generally,
>our economic miracle refers to that of '80-90's. Do you have to reach back to
>over 50 and 60 years ago to explain it and ignore the rest whole 50 years from
>then? Korea had lost most of the things during the Japanese occupation through
>WWII...and after the Korean War ended, we had "NOTHING" left. Even the politics
>were rotten by the remaining power structure of ex-Japan-philes. Our only
>property was our value of "education" which has its root to the ancient Koreans
>and of confucianism. Koreans were willing to give up food for "knowledge" and
>this had enabled the present economic success. Korean history did not end up
>in 1945, the followed 50 years of blood shedding struggles--both politically and
>economically--led us to now.
Is this the same education and confucianism the moved women to the
bottom of the social structure and allowed anyone, even complete morons,
to be in charge just because the were older? There were no asian
countries that gained a technological boost until they at least
compromised their confucian beliefs. Japan realized that without learning
the knowledge of western barbarians, they would fall behind. This is
pretty incredible, considering Japanese culture. The occupation of Korea
was wrong, but claiming that Koreans biggest strength was clinging to the
old beliefs is also wrong. Korea had the same opportunity as other asian
countries but did not take it.
Gary D
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Beckie Yi
(Jason Dandy) wrote:
> Beckie Yi (yib...@cts.com) wrote:
>
> : The results of the occupation, such as the Japanese building of
> : infrastructure in Korea, can only be called "beneficial" if Koreans
> : couldn't have done it themselves without the Japanese. But how can anyone
> : know what Koreans could have accomplished by themselves in the absence of
> : the Japanese occupiers? Actually, if our country hadn't been occupied,
> : we could have built our own infrastructure *better* than the Japanese,
> : because we could have avoided having our resources plundered and the
> : profits from Korean labor shipped back to Japan in the process. It would
> : have been *really* beneficial if the Japanese had stayed on their islands
> : and kept their damned infrastructure to themselves!
>
> : Many Western students of Korea overlook this point about what Korea could
> : have accomplished by herself. They assume that just because Korea was one
> : step behind Japan before the occupation, we could never have caught up on
> : our own without the occupation. In retrospect, what Korea has achieved
> : *in spite of* the damage done by the Japanese (and by the partition of the
> : country, which is partially attributable to the effects of the
> : occupation), shows that we could have surpassed Japan a long time ago if
> : it hadn't been for the occupation and its "benefits."
>
>
> a wise man once said, "when you know not whereof you speak, your mouth is
> best used for chewing." take a big bite.
This kind of remark doesn't advance the debate, nor does it set an
appropriate tone at the outset of what should be a rational
discusssion.
>you claim that korea would have done "just fine" developing her own infra-
>structure. pretty much every korea scholar disagrees.
First, I don't think this is true among the most recent generation of
Korea scholars, who are examining many previously taboo subjects, such as
the way in which some of the Korean elite profitted from the occupation.
> now, i'm sorry if
> you think one of the old heads of the largest economic think tank in
> korea, the Korean Development Institute, is a brainwashed fool, but korean
> politicians would beg to differ.
Korean policians are not reputable sources to quote on this matter. Most
Korean politicians primarily represent the elite, which is a tiny
minority. Some of the Korean elite did profit from the occupation, by
collaborating with the Japanese. The descendents of these people, who
belong to families that are still very wealthy and powerful, favor the
Japan-centric viewpoint, for obvious reasons. They still have a great
deal of clout in the universities, which they endow. These families are
also big contributors to political parties. So of course, both the
professors and the politicians, who are in their pay, promote the view
that *everybody* benefitted from the occupation. But their promoting it
doesn't make it true. And saying that some of the Korean elite profitted
by the occupation is hardly the same thing as saying that KOREA -- i.e.
the country and people as a whole -- benefitted.
> Korea, as a previous poster pointed out (thanks), was called
> the "hermit kingdom" for its flat out refusal to open its ports to trade.
> it was JAPAN who finally forced korea to open its ports, followed
> by a number of western nations.
Right. Japan "forced" Korea with a contingent of warships and troop
transports. You advocate *forcing* other nations to "make progress,"
because it's "for their own good." Suppose someone were to break down the
front door of your house so he could come in and rob you. And suppose
that in the process of robbing you, the thief were accidentally to leave
behind some burglar tools that you later used to repair the door.
Subsequently you find out that most of the tools were stolen from your own
garage. (This is analogous to the fact that the infrastructure Japan
built in Korea was with Korean labor, using Korean raw materials, and
financed with surpluses that Japan was able to accumulate because of the
plunder of Korea.)
By your logic you would have to claim that this thief "benefitted" you.
This is a strange sort of benefit. What would really have been beneficial
would be if he hadn't robbed your garage and broken down your door in the
first place.
> Jung-en Woo, author of "Race to the Swift," a book on the economic miracle
> of the Republic of Korea, states (on page 25 of that book),
> "The architect for such sweeping transformation was Megata Tanetaro, a
> Harvard-educated bureaucrat from the Japanese Ministry of Finance, who had
> come to Korea in 1904 to serve as the court's financial advisor. With the
> enormous political and military power of imperial Japan stiff-arming
> the Yi court, Megata created almost overnight teh entire modern
> fiscal and financial system in Korea...He built institutions of state finance,
> first by separating the finances of the court and the government, and
> then by creating a budget office, a tax agency, and later, a whole
> panopoly of state-sponsored special banks as well as the central bank.
Far from being beneficial to *Korea,* it was beneficial only to *Japan* to
have this financial structure in place, because it allowed the Japanese to
strengthen their grip over Korean politics, grab Korean land, and control
Korean industry, thus providing the basis for their annexation of Korea
six years later.
It's interesting that the first thing Megata did after being "appointed"
(under Japanese pressure) was to "reform" Korean currency by declaring
two-thirds of the nickel coins in circulation to be "worthless" and
therefore non-exchangeable, which caused tremendous losses among Korean
businessmen. However, when the new currency appreciated in value, it
brought tremendous windfall profits to the Japanese.
The main result of Megata's currency reform was to open the way still
further to the economic advance of Japanase commercial interests in
Korea. Not only this, it became the *decisive factor* in enabling
Japanese banks to dominate the financial sector in Korea. For example,
after Japan's annexation of Korea in 1910, the Japanese Industrial Bank,
which had been established in 1906 with Megata's help, became an
instrument for supporting mainly Japanese businessmen and farmers.
This same Megata was instrumental in forcing the Korean government to
borrow huge sums from Japan during the Protectorate, just prior to the
annexation. The borrowed funds were used to finance the activities of the
Japanese Residency-General in Korea, support the newly established banking
institutions, and employ Japanese officials. For example, a Japanese bank
provided a loan of 3,000,000 yen to finance the disastrous currency
"reform." By 1910, Korea's debt had reached the enormous sum of
45,000,000 yen. The burden of this debt only made the Korean government
all the more dependent on Japan.
Because the Korean people could see the danger of this dependence, there
was a nationwhide movement to redeem the debt, by collecting suitably
scaled contributions from the entire Korean populace. After the
annexation, however, the Japanese Government-General *forced* the debt to
be repaid from taxes extorted from the Korean people.
So much for "benefitting" Korea!
> earlier, she states (on page 23), "These years of surplus [1914-1920]
> also started the industrialization of the colonies and other spheres of
> influence, with an estimated Y1.8 billion of Japanese private capital
> invested overseas in 1914-1924--most of it went to China, Manchuria, and
> Korea."
You must be joking if you're suggesting that Japan invested in Korea with
any other thought than ripping off Korean labor, plundering Korea's
natural resources, dominating Korean trade and agriculture, and providing
a military-industrial economic base for expansion into China.
[cut]
> . . .I am without a doubt
> NOT saying the Japanese should have invaded and occupied. I am
> NOT saying that the overall effects (when weighed, pros and cons) were
> beneficial. I am saying there were some things the japanese did that
> could be argued (VERY STRONGLY) were not harmful and were, in fact,
> beneficial.
You're entitled to that conclusion only if you can show that Korea could
not have done these "things" by herself, without Japanese "help."
> If nothing else, the Japanese occupation and despoilation
> of korea's natural resources lent to a greater feeling of nationalism
> among koreans.
Nationalism, in the sense of a strong determination to maintain our own
sovereignty and independence, has always been part of Korean national
charactor. That's why Korea was able to survive as a state in the midst of
bullies for 5000 years. It's not that Korea *lost* her nationalism and
then had it miraculously renewed by the occupation.
> But please, dont open your electronic mouth until
> you are going to state facts, not just spew antijapanese sentiment
> that YOU are brainwashed into believing.
By the same logic, you must be "spewing anti-Korean sentiment." Your
attitude of looking at historical events from the point of view of the
aggressor's propaganda indicates that you have succumbed to brainwashing.
In contrast, my attitude of examining the underlying motives of the
aggressor in order to set the facts straight demonstrates resistence to
brainwashing and an attempt to restore the integrity of a distorted
history.
Imperialism is based on an ideology of domination. Everything Imperial
Japan did in Korea was the result of such an ideology, whose sole purpose
was to rip Korea off for the benefit of Japan. NOTHING "beneficial" for
the victims can come from such an ideology.
The argument that Korea "benefitted" from Japan's occupation is simply not
valid, because NO ONE can see into the "parallel universe," so to speak --
i.e. the hypothetical world where Korea was not occupied -- in order to
determine what she could have accomplished on her own.
In the absense of this kind of evidence, it is more logical to conclude
that, because Korea has achieved so much *in spite of* long-term
exploitation, she could have done even better if it weren't for the
occupation, including its infrastructure.
Beckie Yi
Brendon A. Carr
Beckie Yi <yib...@cts.com> wrote:
>Imperialism is based on an ideology of domination. Everything Imperial
>Japan did in Korea was the result of such an ideology, whose sole purpose
>was to rip Korea off for the benefit of Japan. NOTHING "beneficial" for
>the victims can come from such an ideology.
Actually, TWO beneficial results occurred:
1) Despite the pap you've been fed, there really wasn't much of a
nationalist sentiment in Korea throughout history; the Japanese
occupation kindled the nascent Korean nationalist spirit. Nationalism is
actually a quite modern, Western phenomenon anyway -- there wasn't much
of a "German" national character until Bismarck. The nation-state is a
European model which didn't take root until the 18th century. In Asia,
the state in China's case encompassed many nations, and in Japan and
Korea the state existed in the absence of any single nation.
>Nationalism, in the sense of a strong determination to maintain our own
>sovereignty and independence, has always been part of Korean national
>charactor. That's why Korea was able to survive as a state in the midst of
>bullies for 5000 years. It's not that Korea *lost* her nationalism and
>then had it miraculously renewed by the occupation.
2) Despite Japan's objective intent in administering its annexation of
Korea, there were concrete infrastructural improvements left behind after
they were ousted. Your insistence that motive, something ephemeral,
irredeemably taints results simply shows how American you really are.
Funny that you'd be so caught up with Korea then.
>You must be joking if you're suggesting that Japan invested in Korea with
>any other thought than ripping off Korean labor, plundering Korea's
>natural resources, dominating Korean trade and agriculture, and providing
>a military-industrial economic base for expansion into China.
>The argument that Korea "benefitted" from Japan's occupation is simply not
>valid, because NO ONE can see into the "parallel universe," so to speak --
>i.e. the hypothetical world where Korea was not occupied -- in order to
>determine what she could have accomplished on her own.
>
>In the absense of this kind of evidence, it is more logical to conclude
>that, because Korea has achieved so much *in spite of* long-term
>exploitation, she could have done even better if it weren't for the
>occupation, including its infrastructure.
First of all, fifty years is short-term exploitation in the context of a
so-called five-thousand-year-old warrior race. One generation is a drop in
the bucket. And it's not logical at all to assume that depite the weight
of history, Korea was on the verge of abandoning all its inertial
tendencies and begin Meiji-stly modernization. It's only because of
trauma that Korea is where it is today.
BAC
Milan Hejtmanek
1. No one will disagree that North and South Korea inherited vital
infrastructure and human capital from the colonial period. Terming this a
łbenefit˛, though, implies that unintended positive consequences can be neatly
separated from the tragic events surrounding them, can in some way serve to
counterbalance the horror. Mrs. Lincoln may well have enjoyed the play; the
Nazi gas chambers helped give rise to Israel; Hiroshima was provided urban
renewal; many Tibetans are receiving a free government education; native
Americans get to run casinos: but would we deem it appropriate to term
these results łbeneficial˛? First loss of the nation, then division and
war--can
all the shattered lives, all the immense pain, be nimbly put aside and in some
measure considered cancelled out by Korean gleanings from their former
colonial masters? At what point do we excuse the Terauchis and Minamis of
the world and point with admiration at those punctually arriving trains?
2. As has been pointed out, the use of a term such as łbenefit˛ (as opposed to
łinfluence˛, łgive rise to˛, łmold˛, etc.) implies a contrast to an imaginary
world, where some crucial event never happened. Korea in the late nineteenth
century was in pathetic shape, but is it fair to generalize from this period,
as if it represented the acme of Korean possibility? The current contempt
with which a large part of the Korean population holds the most of the Choson
dynasty flows, I believe, from a rare congruence of of the views of nationalist
historians such as Sin Chąae-ho and the gospel according to Japanese colonial
historians: łstagnation˛. There are many thorny issues involved (łsprouts of
capitalism˛, social Darwinism, assessing the real influence of Pak Kyu-suąs
*kyehwa* group, economic reasons for the decline of slavery, debate
over metallic currency, factors behind *sedo chongchąi*, etc.). One central
point that I will mention, though, concerns Koreaąs largely undeserved
reputation as a łhermit kingdom.˛ In fact, it was Ming China who inaugurated
exclusion of foreigners as a basic policy. From 1368 Koreans were forbidden
the general access to education and travel that they had enjoyed even
under the Mongol Yuan dynasty. The tradition dating back at least to the
seventh century (albeit broken during some periods in the Song dynasty)
of talented Koreans roaming metropolitan China and beyond for religious,
occupational, and educational purposes ceased. Travel was on permitted
solely on short diplomatic/trade missions, and then only overland to
Peking, where
Koreans were often closely supervised--even their book purchases could be
subject to seizure by nervous officials. Casual conversations with Chinese
were banned and visits to sites deemed sensitive were forbidden upon
penalty of death. Likely the most famous example of Korean frustration
with such restrictions, is that of Hong Tae-yong, the eighteenth-century
thinker, who, fascinated with astronomical theory, risked his life to catch a
brief glance inside a Chinese observatory embodying western science. In short,
it seems essentially unfair to portray Koreans in the Choson period as
irredeemable hermits. Over many centuries, Koreans had shown extraordinary
determination to master the leading intellectual disciplines of their day,
in the major centers of learning. This chance was denied them during the
entire Choson period about 1881.
It is indeed impossible to determine the łKorea that might have been.˛ But I
believe that the Korean past provides ample grounds for speculating
that a Korea free from foreign seizure might conceivably have become,
say, a northeast-Asian Thailand, united and highly educated. Is there really
such a compelling need to speak of the łbenefits˛ of the Japanese imperium?
-----
Milan Hejtmanek
(In article <3kv1bi$e...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, bac...@u.washington.edu
D. Cho
>In article <yibgle-2303...@yibgle.cts.com>,
>Beckie Yi <yib...@cts.com> wrote:
>First of all, fifty years is short-term exploitation in the context of a
>so-called five-thousand-year-old warrior race. One generation is a drop in
>the bucket. And it's not logical at all to assume that depite the weight
>of history, Korea was on the verge of abandoning all its inertial
>tendencies and begin Meiji-stly modernization. It's only because of
>trauma that Korea is where it is today.
>BAC
As a Korean, I have to admit that a lot of Koreans are loath to admit the
truth. Until Japan annexed Korea and instituted the infrastructure
improvements, Korea was a backward state.
Korea before the annexation and Korea after the annexation are best
personified by the 1st two presidents of Korea after WWII. I forgot
their names.
Nonetheless, the 1st president of Korea was bitterly anti-Japanese and
refused to continue the modernization of Korea.
The 2nd president of Korea was pro-Japanese, verging on being a
Japan-o-phile. He studied at and graduated from a Japanese military
academy during WWII and greatly admired the Meijing Restoration.
He then developed a plan to modernize Korea along Japanese lines.
Fortunately, for the Koreans, he was quite successful.
You can see his legacy in places like MTI. MTI = Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Sound familiar? It's a copy of Japan's MITI.
He was, however, less successful than the Japanese in eradicating
Confucianism and other Chinese thought from Korean society. That
job, I suppose, is left to the current president of Korea.
-Dwight
Jeong-Gyun Shin
>As a Korean, I have to admit that a lot of Koreans are loath to admit the
>truth. Until Japan annexed Korea and instituted the infrastructure
>improvements, Korea was a backward state.
Dwight Joe, that colonial masters improved the land of colonized ones
are common claim. To better understand your claim, take South Africa.
Whites in South Africa may claim down the road they (whites) made
life better for Black majority before apatheid was abolished since
whatever Pres Mandela and successors do would be based on what whites
have done. Isn't that hard to see analogy, is it?
On your claim of being Korean, mind you, I have no problem with that,
except what was the "bon" of Joe-ssi?