[KS] Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and Post-Colonialism

[Lionel Babicz]

Thank you for your kind words and helpful remarks, Balasz.

The language issue is indeed very important, and should be part of the comparison. It is well-known that the Japanese tried actively to suppress the use of the Korean language. As for the French, they tried to impose the French language upon their colonial subjects through the education system, and the word "francophonie" was coined in 1880 by Onésime Reclus, an enthusiast supporter of imperial expansion. As for the results, I agree with you that the time factor must have played here an important role.

It is also exact that the existence of two Koreas complicated the postcolonial relationship. We can clearly see this in the 1965 Japan-ROK normalisation, when Japan was reluctant to recognise ROK sovereignty on the whole peninsula, and wished to leave the door open for eventual negotiations with the North.

As for the length of the normalisation talks, it was certainly due, as you point out, to the Rhee LIne issue, and also to other factors, such as insensitive Japanese comments on the benefits the Japanese colonial rule, made at the beginning of the talks. Yet, I still think one of the main factors was a general Japanese indifference toward the Korean peninsula. I realise I should have added here a reference, as these remarks are based on a Japanese book by Chung Daekyun, "Kankoku no Imeji" (The image of Korea) (Chuko Shinsho, 1995).

Lionel



On 23/10/2013, at 2:23 PM, Balazs Szalontai wrote:

> Dear Professor Babicz,
> 
> thanks a lot for sending us your illuminative article! I certainly agree with the view that the French-Algerian relationship was one of the closest analogy to the colonial and post-colonial Japanese-Korean relationship. The specific elements of similarity, as highlighted by the article, were well selected, all the more so because they help to explain why the trauma of the colonial past still affects Japanese-Korean and French-Algerian relations. For instance, the factors of geographical closeness and persistent economic interdependence clearly distinguish these two cases from, say, the relationship between Britain and Burma, which had been extremely traumatic for the Burmese in the colonial era but became fairly cordial by the 1970s. Still, I am inclined to think that the article might have devoted more attention to a few major differences between the two cases:
> 
> (1) The relative significance of the metropolitan language in the post-colonial countries. In colonial Algeria, French became so prominent in educated circles that even some of the nationalist FLN leaders, most notably Ahmed Ben Bella, found it easier to speak French than standard Arabic. In independent Algeria, the governments made great efforts to implement Arabization in the field of education, culture, and administration, but a good command of French is still more or less a sine qua non for those Algerians who seek to obtain a highly qualified position. Resentment against the underprivileged position of non-francophones was often intertwined with social and political protest, as one could observe in the emergence of FIS. Despite the Japanese policy of naisen ittai, Japanese language did not acquire such prominence in Korea, either in the Korean nationalist movement or in post-colonial society. The time factor, which is correctly emphasized by the author, must have played an important role in this difference.  
> 
> (2) The existence of two competing Korean national governments greatly complicated Japan's relations with post-colonial Korea, and so did the post-1952 territorial dispute. These problems had no analogies in French-Algerian relations. Specifically, I am inclined to disagree with the following statement: "Incidents directly involving Japan – such as the capture of fishing boats that entered Korean waters – aroused only indifference among the general public. This disinterest helps explain why the conversations toward a normalisation of relations, which opened in 1951, concluded only in 1965." Actually, Japanese-South Korean talks started as early as 1948-50, at which time Syngman Rhee visited Japan twice, but the issue of the "Rhee line" created a new and definitely serious obstacle. It was far more because of these conflicts than because of indifference that normalization was postponed until 1965.  
> 
> With best regards,
> Balazs Szalontai
> Kwangwoon University, Seoul   
> 
> 
> From: Julien Mahuzier <julien.mahuzier at gmail.com>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2013, 22:43
> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea,	France-Algeria: Colonialism and Post-Colonialism
> 
> Dear professor Babicz,
> 
> Thanks for the article, the comparison is extremely relevant and interesting. Through your researches, have you, by any chances, stumbled upon similar comparisons with regards to the policies of "economic development" (infrastructures built with underlying purposes and industrialization, notably) implemented by the colonizing powers?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> On 22 October 2013 14:23, Lionel Babicz <lionel.babicz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear list members,
> 
> You may be interested  in my latest article in Japanese Studies 'Japan–Korea, France–Algeria: Colonialism and Post-Colonialism.'
> 
> It has been chosen by Routledge as the free featured article of the issue, and can be accessed through this page:
> http://tandf.msgfocus.com/q/17KQ865XUxlx6R3nxjfs8c/wv
> 
> Lionel Babicz
> The University of Sydney 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20131025/57ef254a/attachment.html>