tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post114227977597986756..comments2024-02-23T23:53:54.842+09:00Comments on Gusts Of Popular Feeling: Badly Defended Apologist Viewsmatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10296009437690229938noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-7938875735325192762016-08-13T12:01:01.221+09:002016-08-13T12:01:01.221+09:00[Continued from previous post]
From anecdotes des...[Continued from previous post]<br /><br />From anecdotes describing the purchasing and selling of wool, wood, and other items, we see that the country also had a functioning money-based economy as well as an infrastructure for shipping items around the country.<br /><br />Another section explains how the Koreans had a war-fleet that patrolled the coasts and conducted daily exercises, men guarding the ports, fortresses, munitions, calvary, and infantry that were all put on high alert in response to the appearance of two comets in the sky.<br /><br />All in all, what the journal describes is a country with a governmental structure, ample human resources, food surpluses for the most part, a monetary system, an infrastructure for shipping items around the country, a military, and most importantly, a level of monetary abundance where even farmers had enough to spend on non-essentials.<br /><br />And for whatever it's worth, Hamel makes not mention of having heard stories of Hideyoshi's invasion 60 years earlier from the native Koreans. And you can also see that trade was going on during this time between Japan and Korea.<br /><br />So what were the elements of Korean society that were existent prior to Hideyoshi's invasion but are missing in these journal entries due to them having been destroyed or otherwise plundered by Hideyoshi just 60 years earlier, and whose absence would go on to set off a "chain reaction" or create "conditions" what would shackle the country for the following 300 years? <br /><br />This question is half genuine and half rhetorical, but based on what I have learned so far, I find Catallus' observation to make much more sense:<br /><br />"the average European nation has experienced tens of attempts at invasion over the last 400 years, and yet that hasn't stopped the Dutch, the French, the Germans and many others from making rapid progress. Chosun was indeed a weak, moribund state whose squabbling elites invited the attention of all the wrong parties for selfish reasons, and that is why the country fell to Japanese rule, not because of events which occurred 300 years prior."<br /><br />And, for better or for worse, if Korea hadn't fallen to the Japanese, it would have been ruled by the Russians.Hipsighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09753644330424681100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-19405303402525009282016-08-13T12:00:33.670+09:002016-08-13T12:00:33.670+09:00nice try, allow me to reflect on a couple of your ...nice try, allow me to reflect on a couple of your comments:<br /><br />"Japan's invasion 300 years before, started a chain reaction causing the backwardness of the Koreans at the time"<br /><br />"It is plain to see that Japan helped to create a condition, which they later used as an excuse to colonise the same sovereign land."<br /><br />Based on that line of thinking, I think it would be fair to say that whatever elements of Korean society that were present before Hideyoshi's invasion, and were destroyed in one way or another to such an extent that their absence would go on to trigger a "chain reaction" or create "conditions" that would shackle the country in its "backwardness" for 300 years, should be conspicuous in their presence BEFORE Hideyoshi's invasion campaigns, and their absence AFTER the Japanese left.<br /><br />I personally find it rather difficult to imagine what kind of devastation could be meted out on a country that an industrious people cannot recover from in a few generations of relative peace after the invaders leave -- excluding perhaps blankets (or other highly sought after day-to-day items) infested with contagious pathogens that the native population had no immunity against, or the extensive use of weapons of mass destruction.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the conditions were like on the Korean peninsula before Hideyoshi's invasion, but as for conditions relatively soon after the Japanese left, we have the accounts left by a member of a shipwrecked Dutch crew. <br /><br />Hendrick Hamel was shipwrecked in Korea in 1653, and ended up living there for 13 years until 1666. This was about 50-60 years after Hideyoshi's last campaign. In 1668, he published a journal of his stay describing what it was like in Korea during that time. <br /><br />The picture painted in this journal seems to be that of a pre-modern society that nonetheless seemed to have a reasonably functioning governmental and societal structure, monetary economy, and military. In short, many of the trappings that one might expect to find in a pre-modern Asian feudal society appear to have been present in the country by this time.<br /><br />At the least, you don't get the impression that the country was so thoroughly decimated to the point that 300 years would not be enough for it to make progress or regain its former glory.<br /><br />I'm including a few snippets from Hamel's journal below, which you can find in full here:<br />http://www.hendrick-hamel.henny-savenije.pe.kr/index.htm<br /><br />In the journal's Description section under "Geographical situations," Hamel summarizes:<br /><br />"The country is densely populated and can maintain in its own needs in favorable years, because of the surplus of rice, grain and cotton, which is provided by the south of the country."<br /><br />So it appears that, a few generations after Hideyoshi's campaigns ended, the availability of human resources and food was no longer a problem for the most part (He does cite the occurrence of two famine years during his 13-year stay). <br /><br />The journal also contains many day-to-day anecdotes such as the following:<br /><br />"Because our clothes were worn out due to the constant carrying of wood, we urgently needed new clothes. That's why we asked the governor permission to beg. <br />[snip]<br />These begging tours were a great financial success, because both the farmers and the monks were very curious and in exchange for some money enjoyed listening to the fine stories we told them about our people and our country."<br /><br />From this it appears that some percentage of the farmers and monks already had enough disposable income to pay the Dutch in exchange for telling them interesting stories of Europe. <br /><br />Since farmers were not exactly high in the social hierarchy, I think it would be safe to assume that a sizable portion of people of other castes also had as much or more money to spend on storytellers and other forms of entertainment. <br /><br />[Continued in next post]Hipsighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09753644330424681100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-23028329013082384992016-08-08T10:05:40.594+09:002016-08-08T10:05:40.594+09:00nice try,
Allow me to reflect on a couple of quot...nice try,<br /><br />Allow me to reflect on a couple of quotes from your comments:<br /><br />- "Korea was already modernizing"<br /><br />- "Korea was already on the road to modernization without Japan's involvement"<br /><br />These comments bring a few questions to mind.<br /><br />- Was isolation an option for Korea?<br /><br />- Was Korea already modernizing on it's own, without any involvement of any foreign power? <br /><br />- Could it modernize without the involvement of any foreign power? <br /><br />I think we are all in agreement that the answers to these questions are no. <br /><br />- Since isolation was not an option, if it had not been Japan that took over, it would have been somebody else; Russia being the only other realistic alternative.<br /><br />- As things turned out, it was Japan.<br /><br />- During the time that Japan took over, Korea was in fact modernized, whatever Japan's motives may have been.<br /><br />I don't think anybody here is refuting these observations either.<br /><br />So, backing up a bit, I think the degree of criticism that is being raised against Japan's past behavior should be commensurate with the degree to which the following statements are true:<br /><br />- Korea would have modernized on her own without any foreign involvement, or<br /><br />- She would have done better under Russian rule than under Japanese rule.<br /><br />Perhaps Korea would have been better off under Russian rule. I certainly don't think so, but who knows? In any case, that's not what happened. Japan took over, and whatever her motives may have been, Korea did end up being modernized.<br /><br />I think these are important things to keep in mind for perspective.<br /><br />One more thing we need to keep in mind is that colonialism or imperialism was not as "wrong" in those days as it is today. Universities handed out degrees in colonial administration and such. <br /><br />The Dutch and British certainly did not think it was wrong or that they risked tainting their international reputation as honorable countries when they rushed back to Indonesia in1945 just after the war and weeks after the people of Indonesia had declared their independence to reclaim what had been "their's" for over 3 centuries, plunging the country into a 4+ year war of independence,. <br /><br />Sadly, this was the state of mind back in those days, and the majority of governments saw nothing wrong with it. So I think that this difference in how colonization was perceived back then and how it is now is an essential part of the context that we need to keep in mind in all discussions of this type.<br /><br />Based on this line of thinking, I'm of the view that the degree of criticism being raised against Japan's behavior is being blown out of proportion.<br /><br />And this is the crux of the issue here: Evenhandedness. This lack of evenhandedness in claims made by the Korean government and media -- and consequently the Korean population who do not have first-hand knowledge of the period (Koreans younger than 75 as of 2015 to be generous) -- is what has started to create a small but noticeable amount of resentment in Japan.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the western mainstream media has chosen to ignore data/information and views coming from credible sources in Japan, Korea, and elsewhere if they happen to conflict with the mainstream narrative, which is increasingly starting to look like Korean government sponsored hate propaganda.<br /><br />My hope is for people with good intentions to not end up unwittingly fanning such propaganda. Hipsighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09753644330424681100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-5389397620310728032016-08-01T13:48:59.251+09:002016-08-01T13:48:59.251+09:00Edge,
You say: "makes me wonder what Seoul an...Edge,<br />You say: "makes me wonder what Seoul and Korea could have been if there was not a war and colonization. Korea may still be one and whole country with lots of potential."<br /><br />We need to take into account the geopolitical context of the time. Isolation was not an option for Korea. I think you would be surprised to learn that a large percentage of Koreans who lived through Japan's colonization actually feel that it was fortunate that it was Japan and not Russia that took over Korea.<br /><br />Here's what Korean Professor 閔憙植 (Min Hishku) of Hanyang University says:<br /><br />"The elders and intellectuals in Korea think that it was a good thing that it was Japan that annexed Korea. Why? Because if Russia had won the Russo-Japanese war, Korea would have become a colony of Russia. Even in Korea, those who study these things know that if the Russians had come in, all the Koreans would have been sent to Siberia. Korea would have been taken over by the Russians.<br /><br />This would have been a tragic outcome for Korea. The intellectuals know that had this transpired, things would have been far more miserable than being under Japanese control."<br /><br />I agree this statement. Judging from how the Russians and Soviets ruled their colonies elsewhere, it's easy to see how the entire peninsula would have ended up something like North Korea.Hipsighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09753644330424681100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-51825477254080612242016-07-08T14:48:08.924+09:002016-07-08T14:48:08.924+09:00Lucewin,
I'm writing to comment on a stateme...Lucewin, <br /><br />I'm writing to comment on a statement that you made, but since you are Korean, first allow me to direct you to a Korean site that you might find useful:<br /><br />"The Truth of Japanese Colonization that You Won't Learn at School"<br />http://yeoksa.blog.fc2.com/<br /><br />I also hope you will find the time to speak with as many elders as you can who have actually lived through that period. People who were 15 years old when the war ended will be 86 years old this year (2016) so time is quickly running out.<br /><br />Back to your comment ...<br /><br />"For example, forcing Koreans to use Japanease and change their family name to Japanease fmaily name."<br /><br />= Forced language use: <br />Yes, towards the end of the war (1944-45), it appears that many Japanese schools forced students to use Japanese. Not to make an excuse for this, but this kind of practice was widespread in other colonial regimes, so I think you should know that the "evilness" of this practice was on par with other colonial powers. Something to keep in mind for perspective.<br /><br />BTW, you may have also learned that the Japanese deprived the Korean people of the Hangul alphabet. This can be easily refuted. Let me direct you to a few photos (I don't personally agree with the views expressed on these sites)<br /><br />Here is a textbook from that period, printed in Hangul, Kanji, and Japanese.<br /><br />http://blog.livedoor.jp/kaikaihanno/archives/33319174.html<br /><br />Vintage movie posters in Hangul from that era:<br /><br />http://blog.goo.ne.jp/think_pod/e/28384e611b21262c620ff9ba76f3ae45<br /><br />In fact, Japanese government employees in Korea were encouraged (with bonuses) to learn the Korean language because, as of 1941, 84% of the population could not even barely understand Japanese, and this was a problem in all areas including law enforcement, tax collection, licensing, and permits, etc.<br /><br />= Forced name changes:<br /> (創氏改名 = creating family names and changing personal names): <br /><br />Korean people were not forced to change their names. To verify this, all you actually need to do is get a hold of newspaper microfiches of the time (1940-1945) and see how Korean names frequently pop up in headlines and articles. Many Korean officers in the Japanese military also kept their names.<br /><br />The Office of Governor-General originally issued Decree No.124: "Regarding the changing of surnames and personal names of Koreans" which PROHIBITED the use of Japanese-style names by Koreans.<br /><br />Why then was “creating family names and changing personal names” implemented 30 years after annexation? The immediate reason was that there was a strong request from Koreans. <br /><br />In the 1930s, many Koreans immigrated to Manchuria and were engaged in developing farmland. Villages of Korean farmers were often raided by Chinese bandits. Though they were legally Japanese, their Korean names made them targets. In most cases, the bandits avoided attacking the Japanese, so Korean farmers became their major targets.<br /><br />There were also protests among Korean people demanding that they be allowed to use Japanese names, and that disallowing their use amounted to discrimination. The Office of the Governor-General and the Department of Education were sympathetic to this, but the Police Agency argued against it. In the end, the Korean Census Register Law was revised in 1940 to allow Koreans to have Japanese names.<br /><br />Movements soon sprung up among the Korean people encouraging everyone to change to Japanese-style names. As these movements began to gain steam, the then Governor-General feared that people might falsely believe that they were being forced to adopt Japanese names, so he issued orders in March 1940 saying that "name changing is not mandatory and must not be forced." This was reported in major newspapers.<br /><br />I could go on with the other five of the "seven deprivations" allegedly imposed upon Korea by Japan, but I think the site I linked at the top of this comment will have more than enough information to keep you busy.<br />Hipsighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09753644330424681100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-38006102568305302822016-07-07T10:22:25.645+09:002016-07-07T10:22:25.645+09:00Anonymous,
Re your post on Wed Apr 12, 04:47:00 PM...Anonymous,<br />Re your post on Wed Apr 12, 04:47:00 PM <br /><br />Great sources and very much to the point. I think you've touched on the crux of this discussion, and that is:<br /><br />"Now if you are insisting Korea could modernize without help of Japan, I guess it might have been possible.<br />If you are asserting that Korea could mordernize without help of foreigners.I guess it was impossible."<br /><br />I think the overarching issue is evenhandedness. Can we say that the Korean treatment (and the default treatment among the international community who rely on the mainstream media for their news) of Japan's colonization of Korea is evenhanded, given Korea's situation in the geopolitical context of the time?<br /><br />An important part of that context is the fact that, at the time, hardly anybody thought that colonization was "wrong." Universities handed out degrees in colonial administration and such. So when you say in closing:<br /><br />"if you wanted to say, colonization was wrong. I agree. It was wrong."<br /><br />I would have to qualify your statement by saying that colonization is perceived to be wrong in the present time, and rightly so, but it was not "wrong" back then.<br /><br />The Dutch and British certainly did not think it was wrong or that they risked tainting their international reputation as honorable countries when they rushed back to Indonesia in 1945 after the war to reclaim what had been "there's" for over 3 centuries, plunging the country into a 4+ year war of independence, just weeks after the people of Indonesia had declared their independence. <br /><br />Sadly, this was the state of mind back in those days, and the majority of governments saw nothing wrong with it. So I think that this difference in how colonization was perceived back then and how it is now is an essential part of the context that we need to keep in mind in all discussions of this type.Hipsighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09753644330424681100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-46881913365840795112016-07-07T01:15:06.047+09:002016-07-07T01:15:06.047+09:00I'm assuming the following question from matt ...I'm assuming the following question from matt of this blog is not a rhetorical one:<br /><br />"Now, if 'the increase in population' was really the position you were taking in that post, why is it that population increase is never brought up again other than in one caption"<br /><br />And I'm not sure if Matt of Occidental didn't have the following information on hand, but here is the population grwoth data from the Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research. According to this, the population grew from around 11M in 1911 to 16M in 1944.<br /><br />http://www.naksung.re.kr/xe/index.php?mid=statis2012&document_srl=104971<br /><br />Download file Table II-54~76, and do a find for "population"<br /><br />nig said,<br /><br />"Between 1932 and 1936, per capita consumption of rice declined to half the level consumed between 1912 and 1916."<br /><br />Actually, if you take the average of these two periods, again based on figures from the Naksungdae Institute, they come to about 44 seung vs. 52 seung per capita, respectively, so that would be about a 16% decrease, not an insignificant amount but not nearly half.<br /><br />And you can't gauge the food situation with rice consumption alone. Food and animal imports into Korea increased nearly ten-fold over said period. Given that population growth during the period was a "mere" 50% or so, that would have been a lot more food per mouth.<br /><br />Download file Table II-54~76, and do a find for "rice" and "food"<br />Hipsighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09753644330424681100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-89481753324252693242014-06-25T17:41:37.220+09:002014-06-25T17:41:37.220+09:00I feel lucky that I found your blog. Great job! Pe...I feel lucky that I found your blog. Great job! People say that the history cannot be undone. But, your post just makes me wonder what Seoul and Korea could have been if there was not a war and colonization. Korea may still be one and whole country with lots of potential.Edgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685624868745180063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-63832820227211326942013-04-24T17:31:05.631+09:002013-04-24T17:31:05.631+09:00Re-reading this old post...
"Korea was so w...Re-reading this old post... <br /><br />"Korea was so weak that it could not fend off even the casual intrusions of the Japanese, Russians and Chinese"<br /><br />Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War<br />= 'casual intrusions'<br /><br />Go figure.kushibohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10306033998028548550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-30702066749937868502008-08-17T12:23:00.000+09:002008-08-17T12:23:00.000+09:00Mika's comment is interesiting. He or she is asser...Mika's comment is interesiting. He or she is assering that it was korea which wanted to becom a colony of japan. <BR/>It reminds me of a impudent raper's apology. he raped a girl by force, and got caught. and said, "she wanted to be raped by me"... brillant excuse. im truly impressed by some pro-japanese imperialism guyes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-15911845283420108722008-04-10T22:34:00.000+09:002008-04-10T22:34:00.000+09:00Urban renewal in 1945? Remember Curtis LeMay and t...Urban renewal in 1945? Remember Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command firebombing 63 Japanese cities. That was "urban renewal". How many people did we burn to death?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-61197732077951578432007-12-05T09:34:00.000+09:002007-12-05T09:34:00.000+09:00I do not know this discuss is still going on or no...I do not know this discuss is still going on or not. Just found this blog by searching through google.<BR/>Before I start to say something I want you to know that<BR/><BR/>First, I am not very good writer of English.<BR/>Second, I am Korean.<BR/><BR/>So, I think you are missing very important concept. Japanease's ultimate goal was not only invade over Korea.<BR/>They wanted to build large empire over Asia basically. So in their plan, taking over Korea was ONLY the first step for it. Because now Korea is independant country and have gotten very strong compare to 50 years ago. We say that Korea was invaded by Japan but at that time(at Japaneas invasion) 'Korea' was not exist. "the Korean Peninsula" was considered as part of Japan unlike many other colonized contries by European nations. Proof for this is, the number of Japanease immigration to 'Korean Peninsula' during their invasion period. It is significantly LARGE.<BR/>Please, please don't say that Japanease had more warm hearted mind than European nations so they helped Korean to indusrialized.<BR/>They had totally different policy over 'Korean Penisula' compare to European nations. what they did is simply unification of Korea and Japan.( For example, forcing Koreans to use Japanease and change their family name to Japanease fmaily name.)Lucewinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17532339636441287350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1144828045837346052006-04-12T16:47:00.000+09:002006-04-12T16:47:00.000+09:00By the way,Even Makenzie wrote in th preface of "t...By the way,Even Makenzie wrote in th preface of "tragedy of Korea"<BR/>"No unbiased observer can deny that Korean owes the loss of her independence mainly to the corruption and weakness of her old national administration."<BR/>And you seem to omitt what Bishop said after the second trip:<BR/> Though the Koreans of today are the product of centuries of disadvantages, yet after neary a year spent in the counry, during which I made its people my chief study i am by no means hopelss of their fututure, in spite of the distinctly retrograde movements of 1897, Two things, however are essential.<BR/>Ⅰ As Korea is incapable of reforrming herself from within, that she must be reformed from without.<BR/>Ⅱ That the power of the Sovereign must be placed under strigent and permanent constitutional checks.Bishop p452 ”<BR/>Because<BR/>"In spite of reforms the Korean nation still consists of but two classes, the Robbers and the Robbed,---the official class recruited from the yang-bans, the licenced vampires of the country, andthe Ha-in, literallly "low men" a residuum of fullyfour-fifths of the population, whose raison d'etre is to supply the bloodfor the vampires to suck."<BR/>And<BR/>" reform have been thwarted at every turn, not alone by therapacity of the King's male and famale favorites, and the measureless cunning adn craft of corrupt officials, who incite the Soveregn to actions concerning the money....p448"<BR/>These are written after she saw the modernization process you mentioned.<BR/><BR/>The modernization Angus Hamilton was talking was goiong on , but as you pointed out, it was done with the help of foreigners. Bruce Comming wrote in ";Japanese Colonialism in Korea: A Comparative Perspective 1997"<BR/>" Most of these systems were installed and run by Americans<BR/>Now if you are insisting Korea could modernize without help of Japan, I guess it might have been possible.<BR/>If you are asserting that Korea could mordernize without help of foreigners.I guess it was impossible.(No Asisan country could modernize without help of western nation).<BR/>We should also note what Bruce Commings said.<BR/>" Still, note the indexes that the American Hamilton chooses to highlight: electricity, telephones, trolleys, schools, consumption of American exports, and cleanliness. If we find that Japan brought similar facilities to Seoul and Taipei, do we place them on the ledger of colonialism or modernization? The Korean answer is colonialism; the Japanese and Taiwanese answer is modernization "<BR/>And if are saying annexation was unnecessary, it might be right.But as somebody pointed out..<BR/>" Before we pitched the net, a fish jumped into the net," said Midori Komatsu, who was the foreign affairs director at the Office of the Japanese Resident General in Korea, recollecting the eve of the Japanese annexation of Korea in August 1910.<BR/>let us find out who chased the fish - annexation - into the net. Choson, or Korea, suggested annexation to Japan first. Lee Ik-jik was a secret envoy of Prime Minister Lee Wan-yong."<BR/>http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200108/30/200108300144080739900090809081.html<BR/>(I discussed Isshinkai to some extent in my blog)<BR/>If you are blaming what Japan did to the guerillas as Makenzie described, I agree,Japan should be blamed for that.It was harsh, brutal, cruel. (By the way,do you know who led the guerila near the Manchukouo? )<BR/>Lastly if you wanted to say, colonization was wrong. I agree. It was wrong.But I am wondering what other choices Japan had in a situation where Western Impericalists was invading Asian nations,.Any suggestion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1144817268656503692006-04-12T13:47:00.000+09:002006-04-12T13:47:00.000+09:00Wow, I didn't realize the discussion was goin on t...Wow, I didn't realize the discussion was goin on this far.<BR/>Anyway, I have a different perspective on Korea.Probably we disagree on many points.But you might be interested in my blog.<BR/>I think it is a good idea to share different perspectives.<BR/>http://zeroempty000.blogspot.com/2006/02/late-chosun-period-korea.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143452377812357752006-03-27T18:39:00.000+09:002006-03-27T18:39:00.000+09:00If you can read Korean, I recommend you to read th...If you can read Korean, I recommend you to read these following articles. <BR/>http://www.new-right.com/read.php?cataId=nr02000&num=1084<BR/>http://www.new-right.com/read.php?cataId=nr02000&num=1085<BR/>http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/45/45so_3003.html<BR/>http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/46/46so_3002-1.html<BR/>http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/46/46so_3002-2.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143324126213954842006-03-26T07:02:00.000+09:002006-03-26T07:02:00.000+09:00Just because you misunderstand the argument does n...<I>Just because you misunderstand the argument does not make it wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you even read my last comment? I seemed to have understood your argument better than you. <BR/><BR/><I>1. Japanese occupation was not a disaster for the Korean race. People were not starved, standards of living was increased and lifespan more than doubled during the time of Japanese rule.<BR/><BR/>2. That objectively Korean conditions improved over the conditions they had before the Japanese came. 1/4 of the Japanese national budget was allocated to reform and build the Korean economy.</I><BR/><BR/>Good. I’m glad you included #2 this time around, because the photos you used to illustrate your argument overwhelmingly focused on #2.<BR/><BR/>Nowhere in your stance above do you talk about Korea’s political weakness. Your post dealt with visual indicators of modernity in Korea – lots of before and after photos. I criticized the misleading way you used some of those photos, and I agreed with Plunge’s assertion that Korea was already beginning to modernize, from a material point of view. You keep misrepresenting my argument.<BR/><BR/><I>You are like a guy that insists a boxer is in top shape, but gets knocked out in the first 10 seconds of round one.</I><BR/><BR/>Where do I say Korea was in top shape? I said it was beginning to modernize on its own. Misrepresenting an argument and attacking the misrepresentation is also known as a strawman argument, something you apparently seem to hate. Besides that, there is much more to my post than that argument, especially your misleading use of photos, your assertion that Japan ‘preserved’ Korean monuments, your assertions that Koreans did nothing to stop the takeover of their country (Lankov’s article says their were 2000 clashes between Japanese and Uibyeong in 1908 – 5 or 6 a day on average) and your misrepresentation of Isabella Bird Bishop’s writing. <BR/><BR/><I>However, the idea that a miracle of unprecedented scale happened between 1894 and 1897 is not accepted by reasonable people.</I><BR/><BR/>Ah, so this is how you deal with your misrepresentation of Isabella Bird Bishop. You dismiss her as not being ‘reasonable’, which begs the question: Why did you quote her extensively if she is not reasonable? By the way, the change did not occur over three years between 1894 and 1897:<BR/><BR/><I>This extraordinary metamorphosis was the work of four months, and is due to the energy and capacity of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, ably seconded by the capable and intelligent Governor of the city, Ye Cha Yun, who had aquainted himself with the working of municipal affairs in Washington [...]</I><BR/><BR/>You say that the modernization that occurred before Japan took full control of Korea was due to Japan or pro-Japanese Koreans. Yet the Chief Commissioner of Customs, John McLeavy Brown, to whom these changes were due, was not Japanese (I think he was British, but I’m not certain); his assistant was trained in the US. Most of the utilities in Seoul were built by foreign (mostly American) companies, the schools and hospitals were built by foreign (mostly American) missionaries, and the newspapers which began to appear in Korean (and English) were edited by US-educated Koreans (like Philip Jaisohn and Syngman Rhee) or a British newspaperman (Ernest Bethel). Even James Creelman, who was as pro-Japanese as they come, said in 1901<BR/><BR/><I>The King of Corea is now an Emperor. Already the clang of the electric trolley car and the clamor of the gold miner are heard in his dominions. Steam railways and cotton mills are to be built. The protection sought for by the Emperor has been found, not in American bayonets, but in jealous American capital.</I><BR/><BR/>He would have been a little more on the money if he had said "fickle" American capital.matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10296009437690229938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143252516860694942006-03-25T11:08:00.000+09:002006-03-25T11:08:00.000+09:00Matt, your argument is a 'what-if' argument that i...Matt, your argument is a 'what-if' argument that is neither here nor there. I can accept that certain areas of Seoul had improved over a time period of time, especially since Pro-Japanese reformers and pressure from the Japanese government for Korea to reform was on the Korean government. However, the idea that a miracle of unprecedented scale happened between 1894 and 1897 is not accepted by reasonable people. You have to remember there is more to Korea than just one part of Seoul.<BR/><BR/>I would ask you then why Korea remained weak if such rapid progress, so weak the Japanese could take the country without a war.<BR/><BR/>My case is clear. Just because you misunderstand the argument does not make it wrong. Fundamentally:<BR/><BR/>1. Japanese occupation was not a disaster for the Korean race. People were not starved, standards of living was increased and lifespan more than doubled during the time of Japanese rule.<BR/><BR/>2. That objectively Korean conditions improved over the conditions they had before the Japanese came. 1/4 of the Japanese national budget was allocated to reform and build the Korean economy. <BR/><BR/>By 1945 Korea was the second most industrialized nation in Asia. The idea that Korea was already on the path of national development is accepted only by nationalist Korean historians, as far as I know.<BR/><BR/>In any case, historical fact rejects your thesis. You are like a guy that insists a boxer is in top shape, but gets knocked out in the first 10 seconds of round one. Korea was an awful, awful mess, and the erratic Korean foreign policy and endemic rebellion proves it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143205929596776252006-03-24T22:12:00.000+09:002006-03-24T22:12:00.000+09:00[Just to clear up confusion, I am the writer of th...[Just to clear up confusion, I am the writer of this blog, not Matt from Occidentalism]<BR/><BR/>So the thesis of your post, the point you were trying to make, was contained in this first paragraph? <BR/><BR/><B><I>Did Japan ruin the economy of Korea during the Japanese Administration? Koreans say that Japan did, and that they even stole all the rice and left people starving. However, there is a lot of evidence to say that was not the case. During the period of Japanese Administration, there were great increases in population, unprecendented in Korean history. This is not consistent with a people that are starving, because the population should decrease in that case.</I></B><BR/><BR/>The point of that paragraph is that "<I>During the period of Japanese Administration, there were great increases in population, unprecendented in Korean history.</I>" This, you contend, shows that Koreans were not starving (the word 'starving' appears twice).<BR/><BR/>I think, however, that we need to look at the second paragraph:<BR/><BR/><I><B>Not only are the Korean claims dubious, but it seems that they benefitted in many ways from the Japanese Administration. Lets take a look at picutures of Korea before and during the Japanese Administration.</I></B><BR/><BR/>The rest of your post is a series of "<I>pictures of Korea before and during the Japanese Administration.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Now, if 'the increase in population' was really the position you were taking in that post, why is it that population increase is never brought up again other than in one caption (out of fifteen captions) where you point out the increase in life expectancy that occurred under the Japanese? You don't even bother to provide any population statistics to illustrate the growth that did indeed occur.<BR/><BR/>Judging by the series of 'before and after' photos, I would tend to think that the point of that post was the second paragraph. <BR/><BR/><I><B>[T]hey benefitted in many ways from the Japanese Administration. Lets take a look at pictures of Korea before and during the Japanese Administration.</I></B><BR/><BR/>To me, it's very clear that the statement above is the position you took and illustrated with your use of photos.<BR/><BR/>But for some strange reason, you <B>omitted it</B> from your stated position above.<BR/><BR/>I have attempted to refute a number of the assertions you made in the captions of those photos and in your misleading use of certain photos.<BR/><BR/>What is your response?<BR/><BR/>Not only did you misrepresent people like Isabella Bird Bishop in the comments to your post, you are now <I><B>misrepresenting your own argument</I></B> in order to weasel <I>out</I> of responding.<BR/><BR/>Hilarious.matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10296009437690229938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143204187063567042006-03-24T21:43:00.000+09:002006-03-24T21:43:00.000+09:00Mika said:"If only Korea had followed Ito Hirobumi...Mika said:<BR/><BR/>"If only Korea had followed Ito Hirobumi’s advice, it would have been spared the fate of being annexed."<BR/><BR/>Do you have any links/source material outlining Ito's advice to Korea on how to develop without Japanese annexation and when it was given?<BR/><BR/>You can't expect people to accept your point of view without well established supporting information. That is the crux of this whole topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143202467006978472006-03-24T21:14:00.000+09:002006-03-24T21:14:00.000+09:00Sorry, but that doesn't look like a 'sports festiv...Sorry, but that doesn't look like a 'sports festival' held by colonists(Whites). And what's the point of this discussion? Korea suggested annexation to Japan first. The primary responsibility for Korea’s loss of its independence in 1910 lies with the Koreans and their government as they failed to undertake the drastic reforms that were necessary to meet the challenge and threat posed by the predatory powers. If only Korea had followed Ito Hirobumi’s advice, it would have been spared the fate of being annexed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143199867418650682006-03-24T20:31:00.000+09:002006-03-24T20:31:00.000+09:00Mika said:"I want to see a pic showing Africans en...Mika said:<BR/><BR/>"I want to see a pic showing Africans enjoying a sports festival under the European rule"<BR/><BR/>Here you go. It is from Cameroon during French Colonial Rule in the first half of the 20th Century. <BR/><BR/>http://www.bmpix.org/pics/bmpix.php?name=20330&size=4<BR/><BR/>There are loads of photographs of African people playing cricket and football on that site too from the same time if you want to browse through it. It doesn't prove anything at all however. It is in fact completely irrelevant to the discussion but I wouldn't like to turn down a direct request.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143198527795391612006-03-24T20:08:00.000+09:002006-03-24T20:08:00.000+09:00Matt's stance is all good and well, but his "evide...Matt's stance is all good and well, but his "evidence" was a joke. If he can listen to his own conscience - “unforgivable deception by omission”,“misrepresenting content is unforgivable” then he would do well to delete the post, or update it with an apology, or at the very least add a link to this post (because he is a man of honour and not afraid to offer differing opinions to his own) until he can find some proper "evidence" to back up his opinion. I hope he doesn't search for them from Japanese ultra-nationalist sites, no he won't because he is level headed and has balanced opionions now. We all learn from mistakes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143196332129558502006-03-24T19:32:00.000+09:002006-03-24T19:32:00.000+09:00Matt Said:"Did Japan ruin the economy of Korea dur...Matt Said:<BR/><BR/>"Did Japan ruin the economy of Korea during the Japanese Administration? Koreans say that Japan did, and that they even stole all the rice and left people starving. However, there is a lot of evidence to say that was not the case. During the period of Japanese Administration, there were great increases in population, unprecendented in Korean history. This is not consistent with a people that are starving, because the population should decrease in that case."<BR/><BR/>From:<BR/><BR/>http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12232.html<BR/><BR/>"Between 1932 and 1936, per capita consumption of rice declined to half the level consumed between 1912 and 1916. Although the government imported coarse grains from Manchuria to augment the Korean food supply, per capita consumption of food grains in 1944 was 35 percent below that of 1912 to 1916.<BR/><BR/>As of 1942, Korean capital constituted only 1.5 percent of the total capital invested in Korean industries. Korean entrepreneurs were charged interest rates 25 percent higher than their Japanese counterparts, so it was difficult for Korean enterprises to emerge."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143195731973813852006-03-24T19:22:00.000+09:002006-03-24T19:22:00.000+09:00nig,If you think that my comments are wrong then p...nig,<BR/><BR/>If you think that my comments are wrong then provide some evidence to refute them. It's your job. I want to see a pic showing Africans enjoying a sports festival under the European rule. Korea could not become a independent state in the first place without Japan's effort. That's historical fact. And if you think that many of Japanese and pro-Japanese Koreans who contributed greatly to Korea's development are evil then how can you defend the legitimacy of the nation? Even Aegukga and Taegeukgi were created by collaborators with Imperial Japan, Ahn Eak-tae and Bak Yeong-hyo. Do Korea change the national anthem and flag?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1143182797643376732006-03-24T15:46:00.000+09:002006-03-24T15:46:00.000+09:00It is hard to argue against what you are writing b...It is hard to argue against what you are writing because you are misrepresenting my position and merely knocking down a strawman. The fundamental argument I make is in the very first paragraph of my post. http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=35 <BR/>I make the claim that the Japanese did not ruin the economy, and did not make Koreans starve. Here it is below.<BR/><BR/><STRONG><EM>Did Japan ruin the economy of Korea during the Japanese Administration? Koreans say that Japan did, and that they even stole all the rice and left people starving. However, there is a lot of evidence to say that was not the case. During the period of Japanese Administration, there were great increases in population, unprecendented in Korean history. This is not consistent with a people that are starving, because the population should decrease in that case.</EM></STRONG><BR/><BR/>That is my position, and it is factually correct. I am not 'in favor' of Japanese colonisation. That is just more strawman nonsense - I dont care which country would have ruled Korea (and if it wasnt Japan, it would have been another). Even your strawman argument ignores the fact that these few reforms in Korea made before Korea became a protectorate was <EM>forced</EM> on the Koreans by the Japanese, and pro-Japanese elements in Korean society. <BR/><BR/>The idea that a war 300 years ago explains the incompetance and corruption of the Choson rulers, or the fact that the <EM>Yangban</EM> class were a bunch of indigent parasites that refused to work and drained the wealth of the people strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. It is this kind of fantastic 'blame the Japanese' simplification that I have been arguing against.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com