[KS] Re: Japanese Colonization Period

Koen De Ceuster K.DeCeuster at econophone.be
Sun Sep 3 04:29:10 EDT 2000


REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C01591.CBE81640
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Two quotes to chew on:

"The threatening memory of, at best, impotence, humiliation and loss of =
meaning and, at worst, complicity could be dealt with only through the =
prism of resistance and patriotism" (p.2)

"After the war came the settling of scores - between those who had =
betrayed the nation and those whose national loyalty and combativeness =
had never faltered at the extremes, and, less often mentioned, though =
politically far more relevant, in the nuances of attitudes at the centre =
- attentistes and lukewarm resisters, compromised and not so compromised =
politicians and political families, converts of more and very recent =
date. In 1944, what was at stake in this settling of scores was not so =
much the past as the future. The attitude during the war had to provide =
legitimisation over who - amongst individuals, and social and political =
groups - was qualified to take the lead in the national reconstruction." =
(pp.25-26)

The year in the second quote gives away this is not about Korea, but =
about Europe. Both quotes were taken from a stimulating new publication =
which concentrates on the highly relevant episode of national =
reconstruction following the end of WW2. This book (Pieter Lagrou. the =
Legacy of Nazi Occupation. Patriotic Memory and National Recovery in =
Western Eruope, 1945-1965 (Cambridge University Press, 2000)), deals in =
particular with the construction of patriotic memories in France, =
Belgium and the Netherlands.=20

The problem with the historiography of the colonial period, as with the =
question of collaboration (which was also referred to in the first =
posting) is that it is (in)formed by the political history of the =
post-liberation period. Sometimes I have the impression that the =
collaboration debate in particular has more to do with post-liberation =
positioning for political influence than with the colonial period as =
such. It should be added that this is not an exclusively Korean problem, =
but to be found elsewhere too, which brings me to my second point.=20

No use bashing Koreans (?) for their "distorted" understanding of their =
own colonial history, if we speak from equal ignorance. You cannot =
overrule one generalization with another!

Still, since I cannot go into the historiography of colonial history =
writing, you'll have to do with my own general statement. As Michael =
Robinson and Gi-Wook Shin also deplore in the introduction to their =
seminal Colonial Modernity in Korea, a national epic of resistance =
dominated the interpretation of colonial history. Such an interpretation =
goes hand in hand with a history of Japanese brutality, while, in fact, =
any detailed study of Government General policies in Korea has been =
lacking. However, while this may have been true for the past, things are =
changing rapidly. A new generation of historians is producing new and =
stimulating research on the colonial period, ignoring the previous =
nationalist framework of interpretation. Just as the contributors to =
Robinson and Shin's book stress, this new generation too demonstrates =
that there was more to life in colonial period Korea than anti-Japanese =
struggle. Rather than to attempt to prove the guilt of the Japanese =
regime, these new studies seek to establish a.o. the formative nature of =
the colonial period for the post-liberation period, not only in =
political, but also in social and economic areas.

One very good example of this new approach is Kim Inho, T'aep'yOngyang =
chOnjaenggi ChosOn kongOp yOn'gu (ShinsOwOn, 1998).=20

A most interesting addition to Robinson and Shin's Colonial Modernity is =
Kim Chinsong, HyOndaesOng Ui hyOngsOng. SOul e TtansUhol Ul HOhara =
(HyOnsil munhwa, 1999)!

Others could be added.

When it comes to collaboration, one refreshingly nuanced publication is =
the Minjok munje yOn'guso's Ch'inilp'a ran muOsin'ga (Asea munhwasa, =
1997).=20

And Yi Wanyong finally got his biography: Yun TOkhan, Yi Wanyong =
P'yOngjOn (Chungsim, 1999); a biography that raises many questions, but =
interesting because it breaks the traditional perception of Yi Wanyong =
as the arch traitor. Instead, it tries to describe the evolution of Yi =
Wanyong as a young diplomat in the US, later committed member of the =
Independence Club and ultimately - for the good of the royal family - =
supportive of Japanese control and rule. This biography is interesting =
not so much for its scholarly quality (much has to be said about that), =
but for its openminded approach to this - in the end maybe not so =
crucial - figure in modern Korean history.

Koen De Ceuster

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C01591.CBE81640
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Two quotes to chew on:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>"The threatening memory of, at best, impotence, =
humiliation=20
and loss of meaning and, at worst, complicity could be dealt with only =
through=20
the prism of resistance and patriotism" (p.2)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>"After the war came the settling of scores - between =
those who=20
had betrayed the nation and those whose national loyalty and =
combativeness had=20
never faltered at the extremes, and, less often mentioned, though =
politically=20
far more relevant, in the nuances of attitudes at the centre - =
<EM>attentistes=20
</EM>and lukewarm resisters, compromised and not so compromised =
politicians and=20
political families, converts of more and very recent date. In 1944, what =
was at=20
stake in this settling of scores was not so much the past as the future. =
The=20
attitude during the war had to provide legitimisation over who - amongst =

individuals, and social and political groups - was qualified to take the =
lead in=20
the national reconstruction." (pp.25-26)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The year in the second quote gives away this is not =
about=20
Korea, but about Europe. Both quotes were taken from a stimulating new=20
publication which concentrates on the highly relevant episode of =
national=20
reconstruction following the end of WW2. This book (Pieter</FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>=20
Lagrou. <EM>the Legacy of Nazi Occupation. Patriotic Memory and National =

Recovery in Western Eruope, 1945-1965</EM> (Cambridge University Press, =
2000)),=20
deals in particular with the construction of patriotic memories in =
France,=20
Belgium and the Netherlands. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The problem with the historiography of the colonial =
period, as=20
with the question of collaboration (which was also referred to in the =
first=20
posting) is that it is (in)formed by the political history of the=20
post-liberation period. Sometimes I have the impression that the =
collaboration=20
debate in particular has more to do with post-liberation positioning for =

political influence than with the colonial period as such. It should be =
added=20
that this is not an exclusively Korean problem, but to be found =
elsewhere too,=20
which brings me to my second point. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>No use bashing Koreans (?) for their "distorted" =
understanding=20
of their own colonial history, if we speak from equal ignorance. You =
cannot=20
overrule one generalization with another!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Still, since I cannot go into the historiography of =
colonial=20
history writing, you'll have to do with my own general statement. As =
Michael=20
Robinson and Gi-Wook Shin also deplore in the introduction to their =
seminal=20
<EM>Colonial Modernity in Korea</EM>, a national epic of resistance =
dominated=20
the interpretation of colonial history. Such an interpretation goes hand =
in hand=20
with a history of Japanese brutality, while, in fact, any detailed study =
of=20
Government General policies in Korea has been lacking. However, while =
this may=20
have been true for the past, things are changing rapidly. A new =
generation of=20
historians is producing new and stimulating research on the colonial =
period,=20
ignoring the previous nationalist framework of interpretation. Just as =
the=20
contributors to Robinson and Shin's book stress, this new generation too =

demonstrates that there was more to life in colonial period Korea than=20
anti-Japanese struggle. Rather than to attempt to prove the guilt of the =

Japanese regime, these new studies seek to establish a.o. the formative =
nature=20
of the colonial period for the post-liberation period, not only in =
political,=20
but also in social and economic areas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>One very good example of this new approach is Kim =
Inho,=20
<EM>T'aep'yOngyang chOnjaenggi ChosOn kongOp yOn'gu </EM>(ShinsOwOn, =
1998).=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A most interesting addition to Robinson and Shin's=20
<EM>Colonial Modernity </EM>is Kim Chinsong, <EM>HyOndaesOng Ui =
hyOngsOng. SOul=20
e TtansUhol Ul HOhara</EM> (HyOnsil munhwa, 1999)!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Others could be added.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>When it comes to collaboration, one refreshingly =
nuanced=20
publication is the Minjok munje yOn'guso's <EM>Ch'inilp'a ran =
muOsin'ga</EM>=20
(Asea munhwasa, 1997). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>And Yi Wanyong finally got his biography: Yun =
TOkhan, <EM>Yi=20
Wanyong P'yOngjOn</EM> (Chungsim, 1999); a biography that raises many =
questions,=20
but interesting because it breaks the traditional perception of Yi =
Wanyong as=20
the arch traitor. Instead, it tries to describe the evolution of Yi =
Wanyong=20
as a young diplomat in the US, later committed member of the =
Independence Club=20
and ultimately - for the good of the royal family - supportive of =
Japanese=20
control and rule. This biography is interesting not so much for its =
scholarly=20
quality (much has to be said about that), but for its openminded =
approach to=20
this - in the end maybe not so crucial - figure in modern Korean=20
history.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Koen De Ceuster</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C01591.CBE81640--






More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list