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

Frank Hoffmann hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
Sat Oct 26 11:08:19 EDT 2013


Hello Don:

> It would be interesting to know the source of that "primitive 
> culture" quote.

You mean the percentage given, or you refer to the "primitive culture" 
term? 
I put, as a usual practice in such cases, scare quotes around the term 
to distance myself from it (as I would also do it when using a term 
such as "oriental"--with or without capital "o"--for the first time in 
any given text), not because it is a quote. 

As for the mentioned 80%, the source is given right below. That 
dissertation is online at the link given. 

Over the past 15 to 20 year I have looked quite intensely at modern and 
contemporary Taiwanese art and art history, and same as with Korea, 
that can only be understood and explained by looking at the wider 
cultural policies. While you say that Taiwan was "far more amenable to 
Japanese rule than was Korea" we see at the very same time the almost 
exact same structural setup that we see in Korea (I looked at that for 
the case of art on an almost microscopic level), AND we also see the 
almost exact same "reactions" in terms of resistance and 
collaborations. 

Coming to "reactions" though, I like to note that I cannot share Balazs 
Szalontai's observation: "I think this cultural shock played a decisive 
role in the rise of cultural purism in both Koreas." (KS list message 
of Oct. 25). Go to any country in SOUTH East Asia where the British or 
the French where the colonial powers, and you see that the very old 
people, if still alive, have a very different way of dealing with the 
colonial past: many are happily sharing their pride to have been 
participating in e.g. a British school, or even still are wearing 
partially British cloth, and so on. This reaction in Korea is a 
different kind of reaction: the early modernization movements on the 
1890s already used Japanese models. Japan itself had distanced itself 
from the model of "import modernization" as that would come with open 
or hidden Western modes of colonization, and that Japanese model of 
"internal modernization" then became a very attractive one for Koreans, 
but also for e.g. the Chinese in cities like Shanghai. (Of course, 
nationalist historiography in the various countries keeps that theme 
small.) The problem, the failure in Korea, was that there was not a 
single political group in that rather short time spam (mid-1880s to 
early 1900s) that could gather sufficient political power to actually 
stay on and modernize the corrupted, declining Chosŏn Empire using this 
model. So, when the Japanese took over, then the same model was used to 
fight them. Yet, there was an ongoing back-and-forth between desire and 
objection, resistance and collaboration, and we see that when we follow 
cultural or political leaders around through the years (and there often 
drastic changes). The ideology of "pursim" is an ideology of the lowest 
common denominator, probably never stronger than today. It was not a 
reaction as such, it was more of an adapted or at least 
Japanese-inspired versatile model that was then assigned various tasks, 
depending on the political situation--working fine in North Korea, 
South Korea, colonial Korea, etc.  

I must say though, that I am not at all a big fan of system comparisons 
when it comes to what they say about culture. The issue with those 
country-level comparisons is the same as with statistics: don't believe 
any statistics which you haven't forged yourself! When we do a 
comparison between two political, economic, and cultural mega systems, 
then I would tend to switch my brain to energy-saving mode: whatever 
one finds is as valid as it is completely invalid. I get more 
scientific evidence out of a Picasso drawing with an oversized dig and 
a virgin with a Stalin beard to then talk about the political and 
cultural situation of a person or country at any given time than a 
comparison of the general colonial situation in Japan-Korea with 
France-Algeria produces. Japan-Taiwan seems at least closer in that (a) 
it is within the former sino-centric world, and (b) one of the players 
is identical. So, if we look at very specific issues, then it *may* 
make some sense to compare, but MOSTLY, in my opinion, to become more 
aware of issues and connections not seen or thought of before, and of 
getting to know other new ways of looking at already known data. (This 
is the exact same positive approach there, in the social sciences, that 
also makes sense in the hard sciences.) That kind of comparison can 
lead to new ideas of what to do and how to interpret data. But as such, 
as a "comparative study," it makes usually little sense--it is more 
what follows that can make sense. George E.P. Box, a very dangerous man 
who revolutionized how statistics processing (Bayesian model) is being 
used by computers for forward-looking tasks (NOT just for analyzing 
past occurrences)--without him Google would not be possible and the 
speed of the Internet would not be there--has this very useful and 
simple insight to offer: "All models are wrong, but some models are 
useful." (1979) If a model can be useful, we may want limit for what 
exactly. A model that compares two colonial systems, not just on an 
economic or political level, but even culturally, and those compared 
systems are geographically (and culturally) THAT far apart, then the 
very first thing I would want to know is what exact aspects can still 
be useful, and what for? The outcome of such a multi-country comparison 
*on such a wide scale* is in itself without doubt completely invalid. 
But there might be something that it leads to, as it might have brought 
up new issues and questions.

Best,
Frank


 The Taiwan experience with Japan was very different 
> from that of Korea. Taiwan did not exactly appreciate the demands, 
> from time to time, from Beijing and was far more amenable to Japanese 
> rule than was Korea. Japanese culture penetrated deep into Taiwan in 
> ways that it never did in Korea -- a legacy that continues to this 
> day.
> Don Kirk
> 
> 
> 
> From: Frank Hoffmann <hoffmann at koreanstudies.com>
> To: koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com 
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [KS] Japan-Korea, France-Algeria: Colonialism and 
> language policy
> 
> 
> By 1945 about 80% of the population of Taiwan was speaking Japanese. 
> And Taiwan, let us not forget that, was considered a "primitive 
> culture" in the late 19th century when the Japanese colonized it.
> Just something to think about.
> 
> See:
> Catherine Shu-fen (Yu) Fewings, "Japanese colonial language education 
> in Taiwan and assimilation, 1895-1945," PhD diss., Curtin University of 
> Technology, 2004.
> 
(http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=15269&local_base=GEN01-ERA02)
> 
> Regards,
> Frank
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Frank Hoffmann
> http://koreanstudies.com
> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreanstudies.com


More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list