I wanted to include it when I put up this post, but the time involved in uploading it forced me to postpone it. A Korean scanlation of Kenkanryu can be found here (scroll down to the bottom, click "Free", scroll down again and wait 40 seconds for the link to appear - and then wait) . While I'm well aware of the legal debates over fansubs and scanlations, I don't think this will get an official translation here any time soon, and it's likely the only way non Japanese-speakers will get to peruse it in the near future. Regarding the accuracy of this translation, Matt from Occidentalism said in the comments below that:
In all, I think I read about 40 pages of the Korean translation, which is about a sixth of comic, and could be considered a representative sample. While there could be mistakes (for example, I didnt check any of the essays in between chapters, only the comic itself), it is my opinion that whoever translated this went to great effort to be accurate.
Update - Apology:
I've been taken to task for this post by Jodi, and rightfully so.
When I first found a copy of the manga in Japanese, simply by looking at it I could see discrepancies between Occidentalism’s descriptions of it and what I could see in front of me (the location of the page where he found the “the Hate Korean Wave” quote and the fact that there was a difference in the way the Koreans and Japanese were drawn - as well the use of many of the same photos as in the “The Japanese Administration of Korea”), and I thought about mentioning this in a post.
The Onishi article’s description of Kanji Nishio’s participation in Kenkanryu made me curious and led me to discover the many links between the revisionists and Kenkanryu, and it surprised me that this connection hadn’t been pointed out elsewhere. I later found the Korean translation and read chapter 8, in which the debate about the colonial period takes place, (this was the chapter I was most curious to read, which shouldn’t be surprising, considering my last two posts) and could see what was being said was quite similar to the arguments made by Japanese revisionists, and which could be found at Occidentalism. I decided to combine the discrepancies I’d found and Kenkanryu's links with the revisionists into one post. Though the Korean text was similar to passages I’d seen that were translated into English, I didn’t want to address the written content of the chapter I’d read because I couldn’t be entirely certain it was correct. While I referred to the general outline and structure of the story (and paraphrased some written content in the first paragraph), I refrained from discussing or analyzing the actual written content.
And yet I most certainly passed judgment upon the comic, which was wrong if I wasn’t actually going to address what provoked my opinion of it (or more succinctly, one chapter of it – an important chapter, when discussing the topic of revisionism, but still, only one chapter). The post should have been confined to challenging Occidentalism’s discrepancies and pointing out the links between the comic and the historical revisionists – both of which were possible without reading the text (due in part to the translations in the Wikipedia article). By going beyond this and passing judgment on it, I overstepped the narrow boundaries that should have been more clearly set out for this post. I myself didn’t perceive how much I’d overstepped those boundaries until my writing was challenged by Jodi’s comment, which reminded me of the importance of this ‘heated topic’, and of addressing it in a public forum. I should not have judged the subject matter as I did, especially based on one chapter, and should have taken more care in writing and editing the post.
Korean barbeque.... Yummy.