[KS] Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 124, Issue 30

[Victoria Ten]

In 1945 30% of Seoul population was  Japanese. When you say  "Korean
population", do you count Japanese in?

On Oct 26, 2013 2:51 AM, <koreanstudies-request at koreanstudies.com> wrote:
>
> Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
>         koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
http://koreanstudies.com/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         koreanstudies-request at koreanstudies.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         koreanstudies-owner at koreanstudies.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Koreanstudies digest..."
>
> <<------------ KoreanStudies mailing list DIGEST ------------>>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Japan-Korea,  France-Algeria: Colonialism and language
>       policy (Edward Kim)
>    2. Re: Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and language
>       policy (Best, Jonathan)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Edward Kim <wangkon936 at yahoo.com>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and language
policy
> I am not so sure one can say that 30% of Korea's population was fully
fluent in Japanese by 1945.  I would say that the number is closer to 20%,
with perhaps 10% more having some functional knowledge of Japanese, but not
being fluent or even being able to write the language, per se.
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Robinson, Michael E." <robime at indiana.edu>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and language
policy
>
> I would like to second Ross' argument here.  Yes, one can interpret the
data two ways.  The fact remains that retrospective attitudes about whether
or not it would be considered a good thing for a good Korean to have
learned Japanese colors the interpretation that the language policy
failed.  As with much analysis about what the observed facts are about the
colonial experience, so much remain captive to a post-1945 mind-set of
Korean nationalism.  Realistically, any educated person or any person
wanting to participate in modern urban culture/life/work in the colony
probably felt it necessary to try to become bilingual, or just absorbed
Japanese as a part of living in portions of Korea dominated by Japanese
language at the time.  I only might or might not have had something to do
with one's ethnic/national identification.
>
> Mike Robinson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koreanstudies [mailto:koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com] On
Behalf Of King, Ross
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List; Balazs Szalontai
> Subject: [KS] Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and language policy
>
> I was pleased to see Balazs Szalontai raise the issue of language and
assimilation/colonialism, but wanted to add a footnote.
>
> Most Korean sources (and western sources following them) tend to
emphasize that Japanese language spread policy (kokugo education, etc.) had
little impact long-term effect in Korea, and typically trot out the same
colonial government statistics about kokugo proficiency over the years.
>
> Such accounts remind readers that by 1932, less than 10% of Korean knew
Japanese, that by 1942 the percentage had climbed to 19.9%, and that by
1945 it was close to 30%. They invariably conclude that, by the time of
Liberation, "overall 'barely 30%' of Koreans" had proficiency in kokugo
(however defined) and that kokugo penetration therefore always remained at
a low level.
>
> I would point out, though, that this is bizarre reasoning. If, in the
short space of less than 50 years (being generous with when kokugo
education starts), as many as 30% of the population had some sort of
proficiency in Japanese, and that very 30% comprised the overwhelming bulk
of the urban population and the educated class, and if by that point
inter-translatability between Korean and Japanese had reached the point
where public posters and documents were all being printed in essentially
bilingual format, with all shared content words in kanji and only noun
particles and verb endings written in smaller print side-by-side on the
assumption that most intellectual vocabulary was shared between Japanese
and Korean (kanji-based following Japanese wasei kango models), that to my
mind bespeaks a _phenomenally_ 'successful' language spread policy.
Moreover, its legacies (linguistic and otherwise) ran and run deep to this
day.
>
> So my point is that while most Korean accounts are eager to dismiss
Japanese colonial language policy as somehow a foolhardy and failed
enterprise insofar as spreading kokugo was concerned, I think the evidence
can be read in quite the opposite way. Are there any other historical
examples on record where the metropole has succeeded within 50 years of
getting as much as 30% of the colonized populace to read, speak and write
its language?
>
> Ross King
> Professor of Korean and Head of Department Department of Asian Studies,
University of British Columbia Asian Centre, 1871 West Mall Vancouver, BC
V6T 1Z2
> vox: 604-822-2835
> fax: 604-822-8937
> ross.king at ubc.ca
> ________________________________________
> From: Koreanstudies [koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com] on behalf
of Lionel Babicz [lionel.babicz at gmail.com]
> Sent: October-25-13 2:11 AM
> To: Balazs Szalontai; Korean Studies Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea,  France-Algeria: Colonialism and
Post-Colonialism
>
> 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<mailto:
julien.mahuzier at gmail.com>>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
<mailto: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<mailto:
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Best, Jonathan" <jbest at wesleyan.edu>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:19:39 +0000
> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and language
policy
> For what it's worth.2,
>
> While I was doing a last bit of field work for my dissertation in Korea
in 1971, but was then living in Kyoto, I was in Puyŏ on a fine late spring
day and a substantial group of women, likely in their 50s and not at all
urban or urbane, were having a wonderful time circle dancing, singing and
drinking. They were red-cheeked and quite merry and when they spotted me
admiring their party, they asked me to join them and, though I didn't join
in their festivities, we chatted some, initially in Korean, but when they
learned I was then living in Japan, they were delighted and shifted readily
to good but dated Japanese. These ladies weren't down from the city, they
came from a small rural town a bit farther south in Ch'ungch'ŏng-do.
>
> I offer this tale as anecdotal evidence indicating that although perhaps
30% of the population was fluent in Japanese, likely a significantly larger
percentage of the population, including folks who lived far from Seoul or
even Taegu and who presumably never saw the inside of a college classroom,
had a reasonable command of the spoken language.
>
> Jonathan
> ________________________________
> From: Koreanstudies [koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com] on behalf
of Dr. Edward D. Rockstein [ed4linda at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 4:20 PM
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and language
policy
>
> For what it's worth, when I was a Fulbright Fellow in Seoul 1967-8, I
noticed that many, if not most, older Korean merchants with whom I did
business would do their sums [maths] in Japanese. That appears to me to be
some sort of indicator of Japanese language penetration.
>
> Moreover, but for different reasons, when drinking with poets and writers
with whom I became friends, mainly through my associations with the poet Jo
Byeong-hwa and the dramatist Cha Beom-seok, I noted that when they were in
their cups, many spoke Japanese and sang Japanese songs--in this case, of
course, a number had been college-educated in Japan.
>
> Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
>
> ed4linda at yahoo.com
>
> "All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and re-inscribed exactly
asoften as was necessary."
> George Orwell; Nineteen Eighty-Four; 1949.
>
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 3:54 PM, "King, Ross" <Ross.King at ubc.ca>
wrote:
>>
>> I was pleased to see Balazs Szalontai raise the issue of language and
assimilation/colonialism, but wanted to add a footnote.
>>
>> Most Korean sources (and western sources following them) tend to
emphasize that Japanese language spread policy (kokugo education, etc.) had
little impact long-term effect in Korea, and typically trot out the same
colonial government statistics about kokugo proficiency over the years.
>>
>> Such accounts remind readers that by 1932, less than 10% of Korean knew
Japanese, that by 1942 the percentage had climbed to 19.9%, and that by
1945 it was close to 30%. They invariably conclude that, by the time of
Liberation, "overall ‘barely 30%' of Koreans" had proficiency in kokugo
(however defined) and that kokugo penetration therefore always remained at
a low level.
>>
>> I would point out, though, that this is bizarre reasoning. If, in the
short space of less than 50 years (being generous with when kokugo
education starts), as many as 30% of the population had some sort of
proficiency in Japanese, and that very 30% comprised the overwhelming bulk
of the urban population and the educated class, and if by that point
inter-translatability between Korean and Japanese had reached the point
where public posters and documents were all being printed in essentially
bilingual format, with all shared content words in kanji and only noun
particles and verb endings written in smaller print side-by-side on the
assumption that most intellectual vocabulary was shared between Japanese
and Korean (kanji-based following Japanese wasei kango models), that to my
mind bespeaks a _phenomenally_ 'successful' language spread policy.
Moreover, its legacies (linguistic and otherwise) ran and run deep to this
day.
>>
>> So my point is that while most Korean accounts are eager to dismiss
Japanese colonial language policy as somehow a foolhardy and failed
enterprise insofar as spreading kokugo was concerned, I think the evidence
can be read in quite the opposite way. Are there any other historical
examples on record where the metropole has succeeded within 50 years of
getting as much as 30% of the colonized populace to read, speak and write
its language?
>>
>> Ross King
>> Professor of Korean and Head of Department
>> Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia
>> Asian Centre, 1871 West Mall
>> Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2
>> vox: 604-822-2835
>> fax: 604-822-8937
>> ross.king at ubc.ca
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Koreanstudies [koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com] on behalf
of Lionel Babicz [lionel.babicz at gmail.com]
>> Sent: October-25-13 2:11 AM
>> To: Balazs Szalontai; Korean Studies Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea,  France-Algeria: Colonialism and
Post-Colonialism
>>
>> 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<mailto:
julien.mahuzier at gmail.com>>
>> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
<mailto: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<mailto:
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/20131026/239443e8/attachment.html>