[KS] Re: Still doubting about the rendering of Korea prior to

[Richard C. Miller]

Dear Michael,

At 09:48 AM 5/16/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Richard Miller,
>
>In some respects the documents that you quote might be
>considered to support the conspiracy theory. From 1905
>until 1910 Korea was not a colony of Japan but a
>protectorate and retained vestiges of independence.
>Its foreign relations, however, were conducted by
>Japan. At this time, as you point out, Japan chose to
>refer to Korea as "Korea". After 1910 when Korea was
>no longer an independent nation but a part of the
>Japanese empire, the Japanese revert to the
>traditional term Chosen as Korea's alphabetical
>ranking in the world's list of independent nations was
>no longer relevant.

So then in 1937, when the spelling became "Tyosen" and Korea's name was
once again later in the roman alphabet than Japan's, what are we to make of
that? A sudden resurgent need for a rejuvenated conspiracy?

"Chosen" (the Japanese pronunciation of the Korean "Choseon") was the
Japanese version of the name for the nation from the point at which they
recognized the Yi dynasty. The switch from Korea to Chosen reflected the
absorption of that nation into the Japanese Empire and its new status as a
prefecture of Japan: as a (newly) Japanese entity, it had to have a
Japanese name. It was for this quite real political reason, and not for
mysteriously conspiratorial ones, that the name was changed to something
that began with a C.

In any case, the conspiracy theory argues for a switch from C to K in the
spelling of the name used by most European languages, and (as far as I have
seen) has taken no notice of actual Japanese practice when preparing
materials specifically for foreign consumption. It was for precisely this
reason that I introduced some evidence that, indeed, deserves the careful
examination I provided. If the conspiracy theorists wish now to change the
conspiracy to allow a shift to "Chosen" and then to "Tyosen," by all means
let them. Or if you would like to project how they might do that, feel
free. It should make interesting reading.

I by no means deny, by the way, that by 1910 the evidence for Japanese
government attempts to erase Korean national identity is overwhelming--what
else would annexation represent? Before that point, however, I think the
historical record shows much less coherence in actual Japanese government
practice, despite the presence of a large group of politicians/military men
who clearly wanted total control of the penninsula, with or without the
current inhabitants. I do not believe that any of that evidence points to a
specific Japanese government concern with anything as trivial as where the
countries' names fell in the roman alphabet.

Richard
--Richard C. Miller
--UW School of Music
--Manado, Indonesia
--rcmiller at students.wisc.edu


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