[KS] Response to Jacqueline Pak

[goodwin]

Hi Jacqueline;

Thank you for your comments and for keeping me on my toes. After reading your
response to my query I realized that when I quoted Duus' book --as a way of
framing my query-- I should have clarified that, in doing so, I was not
adopting his view; i.e. the idea that there is, "a lack of scholarship in Korea
about collaboration."

Frankly, I don't have the knowledge to know if Duus is correct (or not) in
saying such a thing, but you obviously raise a good point: Duus' understanding
of this subject area may well be limited if he doesn't read Korean.  I guess I
unwisely assumed that a work so widely praised (and at such high levels)
mightn't, in fact, be authoritative in its field.  Please forgive me!  By the
way, do you know anything about how Duus' English language book was received in
Korea?  If you are right, then Duus' comment (the one I quoted) is quite an
oversight.

I'd like to say something else too! Through my own incautious use of Duus'
work, I've unintentionally raised an altogether different (but related) issue
sensitive Koreanists may feel strongly about, but which I wasn't directly
interested in: i.e., the issue of whether Korean scholars have wrestled with
the issue of collaboration.  So I'll start all over again.  Is there anyone on
the list who may know some titles of books or articles (in English) that
discuss the issue of the alleged collaboration of Koreans with the Japanese
colonial government between 1895-1945?

Oh yes, one last question. You (Jacqueline) wrote, "one could say that
collaboration too was a form of victimization which Koreans suffered in various
guises."  Really?  Can I ask you what defintion of collaboration you use?  Do
you mean that some sort of social or other structural circumstance in play at
that time, and in that place, transformed an otherwise voluntary act (i.e
"collaboration" as commonly understood) into an involuntary one?  How does that
work?  It seems to me that to call "collaboration" a form of "victimization"
drains most of the commonly recognized meaning out of the term.  Comments from
others would be welcome on this issue.

Cheers,

Mike Goodwin
goodwin at nas.net


Pak, Jacqueline wrote:

> Hello, Mr. Goodwin,
>
> Recently, Japan's wartime atrocities are increasingly being highlighted in
> the media and popular discourse, and not just among academics and
> historians.  Since you mentioned a number of popular books, I will mention
> another, such as "The Rape of Nanking", a best-seller, exploring the "East
> Asian halocaust".  I hear that it will be made into a film as well, as an
> East Asian version of 'The Schindler's List'.
>
> For Koreans who have suffered the Japanese colonial rule, collaboration is
> certainly a delicate and difficult issue, although one could say that
> collaboration too was a form of victimization which Koreans suffered in
> various guises.
>
> I work on Korean colonial history -- esp. nationalist leadership and
> movement.
> In terms of Duus' work which I enjoyed reading and quite appreciated, I
> have to say that your quoted comments strike me as rather simplistic, if
> not incorrect.  As a topic, collaboration has serious politico-moral
> implications and has been vigorously pursued by Korean scholars,
> particularly from the 1980s  onwards.  There are too many works and
> documentary sources that I could mention in Korean language about
> collaboration.  (It is my understanding that Prof. Duus does not read
> Korean.)  I also believe that there is a considerable amount of
> scholarship, if not historical records, on collaborators in Japanese.
>
> Still, only a very small number of works on the Korean colonial history
> exist in English, which may partly explain the reasons for such a view.  As
> far as I can see, for example, a general outline of the nature of Korean
> nationalist movement and leadership has yet to be clearly delineated.
> Indeed, there is much more research required in English to reveal the
> historical facts and truths of Koreans under the Japanese rule.
>
> Increasingly, more English works dealing with Korean colonial history as
> well as nationalist movement will emerge to shed more light. I expect that
> such will add greater knowledge and insights to the currently limited scope
> of English-language scholarship of the sufferings of Koreans under colonial
> oppression.
> This is not to state that Korean works do not have some significant
> problems of their own.
>
> Whether in Korean or English, any simplistic generalizations concerning
> Korean collaboration and collaborators must be rigorously questioned. I
> think it is important to dispel any notion that a complex topic such as
> collaboration can be treated in a reductive or simplistic manner without
> intuitive and sophisticated understanding of the multi-layered issues and
> milieu that constituted colonial-nationalist reality for Koreans.
>
> Cheers,
> Jacqueline Pak





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%