[KS] Colonization vs occupation

[petrov at coombs.anu.edu.au]

Dear Henny,

The answer is in the dictionary. "Occupation" is the action by a group of
people or an army from one country of moving into and taking control of
another country, a town, etc. [usually during the wartime].

"Colonisation" is an act of sending colonists to or establishing a colony
in an area where the subject territory is occupied by a settlement from
the ruling state [usually during the time of peace].

Germany performed "Annexion" in relation to the Sudetenland part of
Czechoslovakia and "Anschluâ" of Austria just before the WWII, but
"occupied" many other countries during the war.

Japan occupied Taiwan and Korea during the Sino-Japanese and
Russo-Japanese Wars respectively. Colonisation continued for many decades
after these wars.

Singapore was colonised by the British but only occupied by the Japanese
(1942-1945).

Leonid Petrov
--


>When Koreans and also Korean scholars refer to the Japanese period, they
refer to the colonization period. When Europeans refer to the German
period they refer to the occupation period.

>Can someone enlighten me why we speak about the Japanese colonization and
not about the Japanese occupation??

>When I speak of colonization I think of the Dutch, Spanish, British and
Portuguese and even the French, but never of the Japanese, mainly because
the time the Japanese occupied many countries is in my opinion too short
to justify the term colonization.

>Even though the Japanese exploited in many ways the local population as
the colonizers above mentioned, the Germans did the same thing, so I am
really interested why we don't speak about the German colonization, but
we do speak about the Japanese colonization

>Any idea is appreciated.

>Henny (Lee Hae Kang)