“she always apologizes to Korean-American students when she visits schools for the wrongdoings of the Japanese forces.”

in the book did it say she was a part of the japanese forces at 11 years old? what i mean is, what reponsibility does she have to apologize for something she didn’t do to kids who wouldn’t have an idea of what she’s talking about unless their parents told them about it? she can’t apologize on the behalf of others to people who weren’t even alive back then

or am i just being retarded?

James, I think you’re aware of the “Confort Women” resolution submitted to US Congress…

I believe this Harvard professor pretty much summed up the issue on “so far from the bamboo grove”. Hope it helps.

A matter of Context

By Carter Eckert | December 16, 2006

THE CONTROVERSY in the Dover-Sherborn Regional School Committee concerning the inclusion of Yoko Kawashima Watkins’s book “So Far from the Bamboo Grove” in the sixth-grade curriculum underscores the importance of history in the teaching of literature, especially when the texts deal with a specific historical time and place.

Watkins’s book, based on the author’s life, focuses on the harrowing experiences of an 11-year-old Japanese girl and her family at the end of World War II in the northern part of Japanese-occupied colonial Korea. It is a well-written, gripping tale of terror and survival, and its first-person narration from the viewpoint of the girl, Yoko, makes it all the more powerful for sixth-grade readers.

Teaching should encourage students to think “outside the box” of American ethnocentricity and highlight human commonalities across cultural and historical divides. Watkins’s book goes a long way toward accomplishing these goals. Through the magic of her prose and identification with her heroine, students are transported to a distant and different time and place and can experience Yoko’s ordeal and triumph as their own.

But context and balance are important. While Yoko’s story is compelling as a narrative of survival, it achieves its powerful effect in part by eliding the historical context in which Yoko and her family had been living Korea. That context, simply put, was a 40-year record of harsh colonial rule in Korea, which reached its apogee during the war years of 1937-45, when Yoko was growing up. While some Koreans fared better than others, many were conscripted for forced labor and sexual slavery to serve the Japanese imperial war machine, while the colonial authorities simultaneously promoted a program of intensive, coercive cultural assimilation that sought to erase a separate Korean identity on the peninsula.

Watkins was a small girl as these events were unfolding and can hardly be blamed for them, let alone held responsible for the occupation itself. But the story she tells is unfortunately incomplete, if not distorted, by the absence of this larger context. For example, she notes in passing that “the Koreans were part of the Japanese empire but they hated the Japanese and were not happy about the war.” Since no further context is provided, young readers knowing little of the larger history of Japanese colonialism or the wartime atrocities might be tempted to think of the Korean population as ungrateful or uncooperative toward the Japanese empire of which they were a part.

The author’s depictions of Koreans in the “Anti-Japanese Communist Army” are similarly problematic. First, there is some question as to whom she is referring here. There was no organized “Anti-Japanese Communist Army” of Korean soldiers, except for Kim Il Sung (later the leader of North Korea) and his guerrilla partisans in Manchuria, but they did not arrive in Korea until early September 1945, long after the events described in the book. It is possible, of course, that she is referring to some scattered local Korean communist groups, who sought a violent redress of colonial grievances in the Nanam area where the story takes place. Such violence cannot be condoned. But simply to portray Korean communists in 1945 as endemically evil is not only empirically incorrect; it removes Korean communism from the larger historical context that explains its anti-Japanese stance and its appeal to many Koreans. Indeed, throughout Korea in 1945 communists were widely regarded as patriotic nationalists who had risked their lives against a brutal colonial regime.

Dover-Sherborn teachers should be applauded for trying to expand the minds of their students beyond the familiar, and to include works about Asia in their curriculum. But Watkins’s book may not serve that purpose well, especially if it is taught simply as a heroic personal narrative of survival, without adequate provision of historical context. This is not an argument for censorship or banning books. There is no reason why Watkins’s book cannot be used in the schools. Introduced carefully and wisely, in conjunction, for example, with Richard Kim’s classic “Lost Names,” an autobiographical novel about a young Korean boy living at the end of Japanese colonial rule in the 1940s, it can help students understand how perspectives vary according to personal and historical circumstances. But to teach “So Far from the Bamboo Grove” without providing historicization might be compared to teaching a sympathetic novel about the escape of a German official’s family from the Netherlands in 1945 without alluding to the nature of the Nazi occupation or the specter of Anne Frank.

Carter Eckert is a professor of Korean history at Harvard University.

Julián Ortega Martínez:

I’m aware of the comfort women resolution, and I find it to be a huge waste of time that the US congress should avoid. They’d be better off passing bills that officially apologized for all the bad things America did in its history [although I'd rather they actually did something constructive that solved big domestic problems instead].

this book simply makes Koreans look bad by describing some of them as rapists of the japanes girl, while Japan remains to be the real rapist of the entire north east/south east asia during world war II. Of course, this was never even mentioned in the book.

There is an EXTENSIVE discussion of this book at Occidentalism that may be of interest. One point made there is that you can’t directly connect the Korean occupation to Nazi German occupation of say Poland: while there were certainly riots and opposition, the Japanese took over Korea through stealth and guile, using Korean factions against each other, rather than a military invasion. Nor can the Koreans be compared to the Jews in any way: whatever their faults, the Japanese did not at least attempt to gas the entire race.

Wow, that US Congress thing is silly. Prime candidate for a good old-fashioned 黙殺….

Maybe the japanese had not tried to gas the entire race…. they instead used the nation to produce gas….the japanese military unit 731(not confirmed, but apparently Yoko’s dear father was an officer from this division)was in charge of this…supposedly thousands of koreans and chinese war prisoners were killed in the process of making chemical weapons.

Mark:

the japanese military unit 731(not confirmed, but apparently Yoko’s dear father was an officer from this division)

So far, those claiming that her father was a member of Unit 731 have produced no evidence that her father was a member of Unit 731. Saying that her father was “apparently” a member of Unit 731 without any useful evidence to back your claim is nothing more than a petty attempt to distort the truth of this issue and assassinate Mrs. Kawashima Watkins’ character. Frankly, it’s disgusting.

It’s not remotely confirmed, at all. It was suggested by some source somewhere based on a similarity of names, but Watkins says that the kanji were different.

James, I wasn’t trying to back my claim by saying yoko’s father might have been from the unit 731, i was just trying to convey the truth that japanese killed thousands of koreans.

by thousands i meant the # of people sacrified in making chemical weapons for japanese, alone.

Hey guys,

So it seems as though in the world that Mark lives in, it is totally OK to rape and kill someone as long as that person is from a country that colonized your own.

Hell, that means I can murder any French or Beligian I want and if they protest, I can tell them to shut up! Wow..Korean logic and justice is absolutely great!

wow wiesunja how narrower narrow-sighted can you be?…The book is being used for little children’s education. it should not contain anything about rape or kill, nor it should give false impression. I’m not saying raping and killing of japanese should, by any way, be justified, because those japanese people made koreans suffer. The whole reason behind why this book is so bad, is that the book makes it look as though japan is the victim of the war to children who read the book, when japan should be blamed for the tragedy.

This whole thing raises the question of whether it can ever be possible to write about war and occupation from the point of view of normal people: not all Japanese in Korea were invading imperialists, at least not more than Europeans have been in America or elsewhere. That is, while there were some who enforced the new situation with force, many were just there to live peacefully in a situation they did not create. Not all Japanese are equally guilty, just for being Japanese, is what I am saying here. And just as we can have anti-war books about the Hiroshima bombing of innocents, ending a war that “the Japanese” started, we can anti-war books about other ‘innocent’ Japanese in Korea and Manchuria, Japanese colonies.

As to whatever ‘impression’ the book gives, the point about impressions is that they are individual. This book is clearly a great starting point for schoolchildren to learn about empires and colonisation as well as East Asia, simply because of these tricky issues it raises, rather than being purely one-sided Japan=Bad Korea=Good.

Mark:
I believe that the teachers who teach this book have been given guidelines that include adding some historical background information and teaching the book as a story of how wars make children suffer.

I have read quite a few articles about the opposition to this book, and none of them have mentioned opposition to the idea of teaching about rape or killing. The main issue they have with the book is that the rape and killing children are reading about is committed by Koreans. From the sounds of their complaints, they would like the children to be read a long list of Japanese crimes against Korea and China before reading the book, which would of course contain quite a lot of the rape and murder that you think is inappropriate for children to read.

I think the point the schools are trying to make by including this book in their classes is that war makes innocent people and children victims regardless of which side they are on in the conflict, which is a view I happen to agree with. The Japanese government and military did many bad things in Asia during the war, so you want children to know that “Japan should be blamed” in the case of Koreans attacking Japanese women and children who were stranded in Korea after the war? I certainly agree that students should be presented with some historical background on Japan’s occupation of Korea, but I cannot agree with the idea of simplying writing off the attacks mentioned in the book as the fault of the Japanese. The attackers probably did not fare well under Japanese rule, but their decision to attack Japanese civilians should not be presented in the context of blaming Japan for the tragedy.

Blaming Japan for the tragedy would defeat the anti-war message that the educators seem to be going for. As the overthinker just stated, it oversimplifies this war by making one side the “bad guy,” and the other side the victim, with revenge atrocities being written off because the “bad guy” is to blame for starting the conflict.

I get you guys’ points now, but i can’t still shake away my belief that many children are falling victims to the ideology of the book. i hope i won’t be seeing in the near future these children praise and sympathize japan for what they did in the 20th century.

Mark
Could you back up your comments with sources.
You comments are exactly in line with Korean’ ultranationalist.
I don’t understand why Korean ultra nationalist want to evaluate her book by a completely irrelevant topic such as his father’s occupation. I think their project sounds more insane when they are not sure if his father was a leading member.

I have no intention to justify the atrocity Japanese troop has committed. And they were victim of the war in the same sense Japanese citizens were victims of the war. But note that Koreans were rather positive part of war game Japanese government was engaged in. I think it is hypocritical to try to hide it.

Ponta if you’d read the replies above more carefully, you’d understand what’s wrong, if you don’t i’m sorry you are not seeing the whole matter through. It is wrong for some koreans to cling on such unconfirmed information to enhance their argument. Whether her dad was an officer is not important, and this will not change the intension of the book. And you say “Koreans were rather positive part of war game Japanese government was engaged in”? Come on. Before you tell me to identify my sources, you should check what you say is true and fully backed up.

Mark,

I am a US public school teacher who has read the book. The book includes sympathetic Japanese and sympathetic Koreans and nasty Japanese and nasty Koreans. The only consistent bad guys in the story are Korean Communists. Americans have no historical animosity towards Koreans, but they do towards Communism. US teenagers, most of whom know nothing about Korea, aren’t going to be prejudiced by this book, whose final few chapters retell the harsh treatment Yoko and her siblings received in Japan. I realized how little irrelevant the national identities and setting were after reading an Amazon.com review by a teenager, who recalled Yoko’s escape from “Vietnam.”

Mark
“Come on. Before you tell me to identify my sources, you should check what you say is true and fully backed up.”
Gladly.
It was an Korean official who suggested to Japan that Japan should annex Korea.
“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.
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.”
2001.08.30joong ang daily
The largest Korean political, Iljinhoe, party at the time supported it.
(According to its leader , the # of member was a million, according to Japanese record , it was about 140000. The population of Korea was 1300000 呉善花　韓国併合への道(2000年　文春新書))

Korean people who directly experienced the colonization speaks.
ttp://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/ksr02-02.htm

economic development
ttp://www.occidentalism.org/?p=510#comment-14366

As for the war collaboration

More than 300000 young Korean men volountarily applied for Japanese military when Tojou, A criminal, was a prime minister.
ttp://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/朝鮮人日本兵
Foreign Dispatches wrote:
“Not only did Koreans collaborate with the Japanese on a basis of equality unimaginable between Africans and their European overlords, but, as Eckert makes crystal clear, Korean businessmen profited to an extreme degree from Japan’s late 1930s aggressions in Manchukuo and China. Koreans were much more beneficiaries and accomplices of Japanese imperial aggression than they were the victims they prefer to see themselves as being, with Korean magnates waxing fat off Japanese imperial subsidies, tariff preferences, bank loans and orders for military equipment.
…..
Indeed, Korean industrialists even set up of their own accord a Choson Aircraft Company to manufacture planes for kamikaze attacks. Korean and Japanese cooperation in the pursuit of war production (and profits) was extremely tight”
ttp://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2007/02/offspring_of_em.html

If they are not sufficient, I can give you more.

My general stance on this subject
ttp://www.occidentalism.org/?p=508#comment-14280

Thanks.

Mark,

The Koreaweb link provided by Ponta doesn’t work. An excellent book on the reality of Korean life during the occupation is Under the Black Umbrella by Hildi Kang. She interviewed hundreds of elderly Koreans on their experiences and lets them share their memories directly with the reader.

“The Koreaweb link provided by Ponta doesn’t work”
It worked on my computer. Just put h after ttp:

Ponta, your sources are biased. First of all, Chosun suggested annexation to Japan first? Are you fking kidding me? It wasn’t Chosun as a whole, It was Lee-wan yong who sold out his own country to japan. Sonagi, “An excellent book on the reality of Korean life during the occupation is Under the Black Umbrella by Hildi Kang” Don’t rely on the book to seek for biased knowledge. The book is making mistakes by telling equal parts of good and bad impression about Japan therefore making it seem as though almost half of Koreans enjoyed their life under Japan. Go ask any korean in the neighbourhood as you can find, and ask them what their proposition on Japanese colonization of Korea. 10 out of 10, 100 out of 100, the answer will be the same, which would be shameful for you. If koreans welcomed to be part of japan, why is the government so keen to recover lands from decendents of pro-japanese koreans? It is almost as illegal to own anything if your grandparents loved to lick some japanese’s ass.

Go ask any korean in the neighbourhood as you can find, and ask them what their proposition on Japanese colonization of Korea. 10 out of 10, 100 out of 100

Go ask the French what they did during World War 2, “I fought in the resistance” will be what you’ll hear from 10 out of 10, 100 out of 100. How many Koreans are brave enough to say living as Japanese subjects wasn’t that bad?

To all the people above. Just because you have read a few books, does not mean you understand this whole Japan and Korea issue. Plus this is a Japanese website, which i forgot. You probably haven’t met many Koreans, but you dig sushi and the rising sun. Why are Korean communists constantly bad in the book? because they fought against Japan and the book was written by a Japanese. Obviously it’s the difference in point of view, because those Korean communists were patriots to Koreans, who fought at the front to liberate Korea from japan.

気持ち悪い, please change your name first, you look way too japanese to be not biased. So how many french/korean guys have you actually talked with?

Mark
“Ponta, your sources are biased.”

My source is by non-Japanese.
The article about Korea suggesting annexation is by joongang daily, Korean newspaper and it is only stating a fact.
The article about 一進会　is by Korean professor.And the part I cited was
jsut stating a fact.

“It wasn’t Chosun as a whole,”
Sure it wasn’t as a whole. There was a conservative who wanted to reserve their powers in old Chosun dynasty. But as I told you, the largest political party supported the annexation.

“Don’t rely on the book to seek for biased knowledge. The book is making mistakes by telling equal parts of good and bad impression about Japan therefore making it seem as though almost half of Koreans enjoyed their life under Japan”
If you read the book in question, the author whose husband is Korean
seems to have wanted to paint Japan as bad as possible just as she was told by Koreans around her. But when she actually interviewed, it turned out that it was not as bad as she heard from Koreans around her. In fact, majority’s response was “nothing much happened to them”.
I guess it is after Rhee regime, who was arrested under Japanese rule, and who was anti-Japan, under whom much more Korean civilians were killed than under Japanese rule, that Korean society started distorting history just as North Korea has distorted history.

I am not saying there was no discrimanations. I guess in those days, some Japanese people used racial slur directly to Koreans people. And that was wrong.

But on the whole, I think majority of Korean people went along with Japanese policy.
Korean businessmen became rich using Japanese system at the time which had been impossible at the time of Chosun period.
The development of infrastructure was outstanding as a western traveller noted.
Korean military officers became famous, Probably They were heros for Korean people, They had Japanese soldiers under them.
That is probably one reason why more than 300000 Korean young men voloutarily applied for Japanese military, when Tojou was a prime minister.
The sad part is Korea military guards under Japanese imperial army became notorious for more cruel than Japanese.

I am not saying that they were hundred percent satisfied.
Some Korean people might have been ambivalent about being ruled by Japan. And it is also true that there were fervent supporter of Japan.

The colonization is wrong. and so Japan apologized several times, and compensated.
I think it is Korea’s turn to face history.

I wonder why you don’t back up your opinion with unbiased sources.
I know there are a lot of biased Korean nationalist historians. In Korea, people who shed doubt on Korean nationalist assumption will be treated like this.
http://file2.cbs.co.kr/newsroom/image/2006/11/30152410950_61000040.jpg
(the old man kicked is a Korean historian who wrote textbook a bit i favor of Japan)
Lankov, an expert on Korea said,
“In Korea you do not criticize nationalist assumptions, at least, you do not do it too actively.”
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-60808
Note that it is Korean ultra-nationalists, native or ethnic, that are bashing Yoko Kawashima in this post with cruel and irrational reasons.

No wonder many Korean people around you say something only bad about the colonization. Because it is taboo to say anything good about
Korea and it is only natural you were misguided.

But I believe it is vital for Korea to face history ..

I am backing up my thesis with non-Japanese sources. you are backing up with your opinoin with hearsay. I don’t think my source is baised.

Hey Ponta i don’t think you are reading my words carefully, so I will try to make this one more legible.

“I am backing up my thesis with non-Japanese sources.”

That does not necessarily mean any non-Japanese source is unprejudiced.

“I don’t think my source is baised.”

So you think your source maybe biased. Based on seeing your posts and replies from This website and from Occidetalism, It is obvious that you are pro-japanese, if not in love with japan.

“No wonder many Korean people around you say something only bad about the colonization. Because it is taboo to say anything good about
Korea and it is only natural you were misguided.”

Hey, even the Chinese, Vietnamese, Filliphinos….you name any east asian ethnicity….and ask them If they hate Japan, too. What do you think explains this whole anti-japanese rallies going among these cultures(especially china). I know for a fact though, Taiwanese are not against japan, the whole Taiwan island was under Japanese administration, more or less of China & Korea. saying “I like Japan” isn’t a taboo in the island, unlike the other two countries. But why are they so anti-japan now? I’ll let your logic handle this.

“largest political party supported the annexation”

Not only it is rare that “the largest political party” represent the entire
country and it’s people, there was no such thing as “the largest political
party supporting the annexation”.

Do you know that Chosun was a kindom? Ruled by a king. There was no political parties AS YOU WOULD IMAGINE SOMETHING MUCH LIKE TODAY’S, there was just the king and his own government. Can you imagine the king of a country would glady be cooperative to someone so desparate to take over his land? but how the hell did Japan swallowed Korea? It was Lee wan-yong along with several other people, who basically overthrew the king and signed the “Contract” with Japan, which was done in the face of the poor king and his uneducated people….and they just did that for the money and their fate after the forced union. Please refer to Treaty Eulsa, or eul-sa-jo-yak, or 을사조약 in korean.

It seems as though i am debating with Google, not you, Ponta. I can see a trace of this in your every other post. So my conclusion is that you know nothing really about this anti-japan thing triggered by Yoko’s book. You just like Japan and this is where you ended up being.

it is taboo to say anything good about
Korea
→it is taboo to say anything good about
Japan

I just wrote a long reply but then it just got deleted somehow. So ill write what i can remember from it

“I am backing up my thesis with non-Japanese sources”

Doesn’t mean any non-japanese source is necessarily unprejudiced. Now that everyone seems to be playing a Japanese video game, drives a japanese car, eats sushi, and even wears t-shirts sporting a big red dot. And you can say you are not affected by Japan?

“I don’t think my source is baised”

Yeah yeah……so you think your source might be biased.

“No wonder many Korean people around you say something only bad about the colonization. Because it is taboo to say anything good about
Korea and it is only natural you were misguided”

Any chinese, vietnamese, Filliphinos…you name any east asian ethnicity and ask them what’s their view on Japan. With a little exaggeration, they’d flip the second they hear the letter J. I know for a fact though, that Taiwan is not against Japan. The whole taiwan island had japanese infrastructure, and was under Japanese administration, more or less of China& Korea. Saying “i like Japan” isn’t a taboo in taiwan. But why are there so many anti-japan rallies in China and Korea? i’ll let your logic handle it.

“Sure it wasn’t as a whole. There was a conservative who wanted to reserve their powers in old Chosun dynasty. But as I told you, the largest political party supported the annexation”

The largest political party? LOL. The largest political party of a country rarely represent the country as a whole. Korea was “sold” by a few robbiests who overthrew the king and signed the “contract” with Japan, and they this in the face of the uneducated nation. They just did this for money and their fate which was granted by Japan after forced union. Refer to Treaty Eulsa, or Eul-Sa-Jo-Yak, or 을사조약 in korean.

It seems as though i am debating with Google, not you, Ponta. I can see a trace of this in your every other posts. So my conclusion? you don’t know nothing really about this anti-japan waves triggered by Yoko’s book. I just wrote a long reply but then it just got deleted somehow. So ill write what i can remember from it

“I am backing up my thesis with non-Japanese sources”

Doesn’t mean any non-japanese source is necessarily unprejudiced. Now that everyone seems to be playing a Japanese video game, drives a japanese car, eats sushi, and even wears t-shirts sporting a big red dot. And you can say you are not affected by Japan?

“I don’t think my source is baised”

Yeah yeah……so you think your source might be biased.

“No wonder many Korean people around you say something only bad about the colonization. Because it is taboo to say anything good about
Korea and it is only natural you were misguided”

Any chinese, vietnamese, Filliphinos…you name any east asian ethnicity and ask them what’s their view on Japan. With a little exaggeration, they’d flip the second they hear the letter J. I know for a fact though, that Taiwan is not against Japan. The whole taiwan island had japanese infrastructure, and was under Japanese administration, more or less of China& Korea. Saying “i like Japan” isn’t a taboo in taiwan. But why are there so many anti-japan rallies in China and Korea? i’ll let your logic handle it.

“Sure it wasn’t as a whole. There was a conservative who wanted to reserve their powers in old Chosun dynasty. But as I told you, the largest political party supported the annexation”

The largest political party? LOL. The largest political party of a country rarely represent the country as a whole. Korea was “sold” by a few robbiests who overthrew the king and signed the “contract” with Japan, and they this in the face of the uneducated nation. They just did this for money and their fate which was granted by Japan after forced union. Refer to Treaty Eulsa, or Eul-Sa-Jo-Yak, or 을사조약 in korean.

It seems as though i am debating with Google, not you, Ponta. I can see a trace of this in your every other posts. So my conclusion? you just like japan and this where you ended up being.

Mark, it seems you made up your mind well before they tried to convince you.

Given that various books, memoirs, articles from Korean media and scholars don’t seem good enough for you, one wonders why you even want to continue the dialogue.

Mark, It seems you made up your mind a long time before Ponta tried to share his information.

>Any chinese, vietnamese, Filliphinos…you name any east asian ethnicity and ask them what’s their view on Japan. With a little exaggeration, they’d flip the second they hear the letter J.

I reckon that you haven’t seen this global poll yet.
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/index.html#japan

This poll found that 85 percent of Indonesians and 79 percent of Filipinos held a positive view of Japan.

Here is another poll.
http://www.kabar-irian.com/pipermail/kabar-indonesia/2006-September/004013.html
“The survey also asked pollees if Japan’s actions in their countries during World War II were still an obstacle to relations. “No” surpassed “yes” in all nations except South Korea, where 75 percent said “yes.” Those who said “no” was 73 percent in Vietnam, 66 percent in Malaysia, 62 percent in Indonesia and 49 percent in Thailand.”

Mark wrote “Any chinese, vietnamese, Filliphinos…you name any east asian ethnicity and ask them what’s their view on Japan. With a little exaggeration, they’d flip the second they hear the letter J.”

I reckon that you haven’t seen this global poll yet.
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/index.html#japan

This poll found that 85 percent of Indonesians and 79 percent of Filipinos held a positive view of Japan.

Here is another poll.
http://www.kabar-irian.com/pipermail/kabar-indonesia/2006-September/004013.html
“The survey also asked pollees if Japan’s actions in their countries during World War II were still an obstacle to relations. “No” surpassed “yes” in all nations except South Korea, where 75 percent said “yes.” Those who said “no” was 73 percent in Vietnam, 66 percent in Malaysia, 62 percent in Indonesia and 49 percent in Thailand.”

If I had to give this book a pass/fail, I would say pass, from what I know so far. Not a lesson in history, but more on humanity and evil. If teachers are good, they will have their kids analyze this critically, and therein lies the important responsibility.

RE: feelings of East Asian peoples towards Japan

Comparing the attitudes of Malaysians and Koreans, for example, towards Japan is comparing apples and oranges. The Japanese did not behave the same in every country it occupied. Korea was unique in that it was not a colony, but a prefecture of Japan. Owing to Korea’s status as a prefecture and its proximity to Japan, many Koreans went to Japan and vice-versa. Since Korea was made a prefecture of Japan, the Japanese government carried out policies to actively change the identities of Koreans to Japanese, policies that were not carried out elsewhere in Japanese-occupied Asia. A more logical comparison would be with the attitudes of Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Uzbeks towards Russia or East Timorese attitudes towards Indonesia. Like the Soviet Union and Indonesia under Suharto, pre-WWII Japan was ruled by an autocratic government which used harsh means to repress any dissent no matter who the dissenters were.

Koreans also bear the bitterness of continued division, whose origins can be traced back to Japanese rule. Had the Japanese not occupied Korea, Soviet and US forces wouldn’t have drawn a line at the 38 Parallel that still divides the country today into half slave and half free. It isn’t Japan’s fault that Korea is divided, but Japan’s occupation did set the stage for the division of the peninsula. Simply chalking up anti-Japanese feelings amongst the Koreans as mere nationalistic brainwashing does not explain fully the reasons why Koreans feel more hostile towards Japan than any other formely occupied Asian nation.

To all the people above. Just because you have read a few books, does not mean you understand this whole Japan and Korea issue.

Spoken like a typical Korean hypocrite who is too much of a sneaky coward to admit the truth. Mark’s statement is proof that Koreans really do not understand the concept of evidence and proof. it’s obvious that to the Korean mind, “books” and “facts” don’t mean anything. What is more important to Korea is who can yell and scream the loudest.

Simply put:

- If you criticise Korean’s wrong doings, you do not understand Korea.
- You can only understand Korea as long as you do not criticise it.

To all the people above. Just because you have read a few books, does not mean you understand this whole Japan and Korea issue.

Spoken like a typical Korean hypocrite who is too much of a sneaky coward to admit the truth. Mark’s statement is proof that Koreans really do not understand the concept of evidence and proof. it’s obvious that to the Korean mind, “books” and “facts” don’t mean anything. What is more important to Korea is who can yell and scream the loudest.

Simply put:

- If you criticise Korean’s wrong doings, you do not understand Korea.
- You can only understand Korea as long as you do not criticise it.

sampoong dept. store,

Simply put you put it too simply!

Sonagi
””A more logical comparison would be with the attitudes of Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Uzbeks towards Russia or East Timorese attitudes towards Indonesia. Like the Soviet Union and Indonesia under Suharto, pre-WWII Japan was ruled by an autocratic government which used harsh means to repress any dissent no matter who the dissenters were.”

Why do you leave out the most likely candidate for the comparison Taiwan ?.
I am not familiar with Russian situation but Hawaii and Filipinas also might be good for comaprison.

“It isn’t Japan’s fault that Korea is divided, but Japan’s occupation did set the stage for the division of the peninsula. ”
It was very close to Korean Ultranationalist line of logic. I am glad you barely avoided it.

BTW I am looking forward to your review of Under the black Umbrella. Have you finished the draft?

Ponta

Did you know that this book is translated into Japanese? Its title is 「黒い傘の下で」

http://www.amazon.co.jp/o/ASIN/4860201892/503-7552112-6541564?SubscriptionId=0C760DFJTH2FN8YG3CR2

tomojiro
It is funny you mentioned it. A friend of mine has just pointed it out the day before yesterday.
Thanks for the information anyway.

Ponta wrote:

“Why do you leave out the most likely candidate for the comparison Taiwan ?.
I am not familiar with Russian situation but Hawaii and Filipinas also might be good for comaprison. “

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Taiwan was not a prefecture of Japan. Likewise, the Philippines was a colony of the US, but it was never a formally incorporated territory and Filipinos were not US citizens when the island nation was under US control. Hawaii remains a US state; it has not regained independence like Korea or the other countries listed in my comparison.

“It isn’t Japan’s fault that Korea is divided, but Japan’s occupation did set the stage for the division of the peninsula. ”
It was very close to Korean Ultranationalist line of logic. I am glad you barely avoided it.

I was merely explaining how Koreans see history. I was not validating their resentment. Korea wouldn’t have been divided if it had not been occupied. That is just a historical fact as much as the US and Russia drawing the 38th Parallel line. Japan intended to absorb Korea and did not intend for it to become independent, much less divide into two separate nations, one hostile to Japan and one dangerous to Japan and its southern brother.

BTW I am looking forward to your review of Under the black Umbrella. Have you finished the draft?

I have informed Matt that I will no longer post or comment at Occidentalism. Matt understands why.

Sonagi

”Correct me if I’m wrong, but Taiwan was not a prefecture of Japan.”

Taiwan and Korea were not prefectures of Japan as Shimane was prefecture of Japan.
Both Taiwan and Korea were under Taiwan and Chosun governor-general’s office which formally belonged to jurisdiction of Emperor. So Taiwan and the Philippines might be obvious candidates for the comparison.
And I don’t see why Hawaii is not a candidate for comparison just because it has not regained independence. Native Hawaiian has a long history on their own just like Koreans. If they regained the independence, will it suddenly become a good candidate for comparison?

“I have informed Matt that I will no longer post or comment at Occidentalism. Matt understands why.”

That is truly regrettable. It is up to you but I suggest you to change your mind. You are a good debater. As you know, I have been attacked irrationally by Korean and non-Korean ultranationalists for Korea, but I just trust the readership.
I was really looking forward to your review of Under Black Umbrella. I said the same thing to Matt of “the guest of popular feeling” . I wonder if there might be something in the book against Korean nationalist assumption.

BTW I realized what made you look so close to Korean Ultra nationalist line of thought.

You wrote,
“Korea wouldn’t have been divided if it had not been occupied. That is just a historical fact…..”

Correct me if I am wrong, but this conditional statement is misleading;for,

Korea wouldn’t have been divided if either South Korea or North Korea had won Korea war conclusively, in that case, Korea would not have been divided even if it had been occupied by Japan.

Korea might have been divided if it had been occupied by China and Russia instead of Japan, in that case, Korea would have been divided even if it had not been occupied by Japan.

The conditional statement you mentioned is the formula for picking up the likely cause, and if it is used misleadingly, it is easy to blame others as Korean Ultra nationalists often do.

@Ponta:

I stand corrected on Taiwan’s legal status in the Japanese empire. The original comparison was Korea with other occupied Asian lands – why Koreans resent Japan more deeply. Taiwan is a logical comparison since its legal status was similar. The Japanese carried out an active assimilation police in Taiwan and Korea. We are not comparing morality or legality regarding land acquisition – we are comparing attitudes of liberated territories towards their former ruling nations. That’s why Hawaii doesn’t fit. You can compare if you want, but the comparison wouldn’t yield any insights.

“Correct me if I am wrong, but this conditional statement is misleading;for,

The conditional statement you mentioned is the formula for picking up the likely cause, and if it is used misleadingly, it is easy to blame others as Korean Ultra nationalists often do. “

Japanese rule is not THE cause but A cause of the current division of the peninsula. One can only speculate how Korea would have turned out if it had not been occupied by Japan. Since both China and Russia went Communist, I suspect the entire Korean peninsula would have, too, but it is mere conjecture. We will never know.

Sonagi
Thanks

“we are comparing attitudes of liberated territories towards their former ruling nations.”

So like I said will it be a candidate of comparison suddenly if it is liberated? Remember there are native Hawaiians who still resent being a part of the US..

“Had Russia or China moved into the peninsula, the US would not”
That is only speculation just as Korea had not been divided if it had not occupied by Japan.

“Japanese rule is not THE cause but A cause of the current division of the peninsula.”

The formula is misleading and when misused, bring about absurd consequence.

Korea would not have been divided if Koreans had not existed at all, therefore the existence of Koreans
is a cause for the division, (or rather it is the major cause); therefore…..

As far as the division is concerned, Japan’s role was by far smaller than Korean itself and the US and Russia if there is a role for Japan at all; nonetheless, the conditional statement you mentioned if stated alone gives an impression as if Japan was the important cause, because that was the formula for picking up the likely cause. That, I think , made you look closer to Korean ultra-nationalist.

“Had Russia or China moved into the peninsula, the US would not because, remember that Russia and China fought on the same side as the US, so the US would have had no cause to send troops there.”
Just like Germany?

Ponta wrote:

“So like I said will it be a candidate of comparison suddenly if it is liberated? Remember there are native Hawaiians who still resent being a part of the US..”

Yes, if Hawaii became independent again, then it would be a valid comparison.

“Korea would not have been divided if Koreans had not existed at all, therefore the existence of Koreans
is a cause for the division, (or rather it is the major cause); therefore…..”

Are you trolling? There are immediate causes and root causes of any major historical event. The link between Korea’s annexation by Japan and its subsequent division after Japan’s surrender is clear.

Overthinker wrote:

“Just like Germany? “

Yes, just like Germany. Germany was an axis power on the same side as Japan and got divided just like Korea. Japan should consider itself fortunate that the Russians didn’t get farther than the Kuriles.

Sonagi
Thanks
“Yes, if Hawaii became independent again, then it would be a valid comparison.”

That sounds strange. what is the relevant difference in the historical situation of Hawaii between Hawaii 1 minute before Independence and Hawaii one minute after Indecency? Will historical, social situation before the independence change when Hawaii become Independent? And Were we not talking about why some people resent more in view of historical, social situation before Independence?
(Japan oppressed the dissident severely etc….)

“Are you trolling?”

I am sorry but I don’t understand why you said that. If my statement frustrated you, I apologize. Maybe the way I put it was impolite.?

My point is that if it is true that Korea had not been divided if it had not been occupied by Japan, it is also true that Korea would not have been divided if Koreans had not existed at all.
And what does someone want to do with that statement? If you attribute a cause of the division to Japan, by the same token, using the formula, you can attribute a cause of the division to the existence of Koreans. If you want to blame Japan for the division by the formula above, by the same token you can blame Koreans for it. But the formula stated alone, mentioning if Japan hadn’t occupy….it is misleading and it is the way Korean ultra-nationalist blame Japan. (And if I remember correctly, a notion of a cause is rather a derivative of human blaming, it was Heidegger who pointed it out, wasn’t it? might be someone else though)

“There are immediate causes and root causes of any major historical event. The link between Korea’s annexation by Japan and its subsequent division after Japan’s surrender is clear.

The link in the sense of temporal link is clear, but causal link is not so clear, i assume.
And this is the exactly point that make you look so close to Korean ultranationalist.
The point is what “clear link” you are talking about.
You are talking about “a cause”.
Are you talking about immediate cause?
I guess not.
Japan played no role in dividing Korea after Aug 1945 .

Are you talking about root causes? What does “root” here mean? Isn’t Korean existence the root? If not why?
There are many theories of history as to what caused the major change in history. A hero? the spirit of the times? socio-economic infrastructure and/or its dynamic? power struggle?etc…

Korea would not have been divided. if Korea had not been occupied by Japan.
If you considered Japanese occupation a root cause, this conditional statement is why you would think it is a root cause. Am I correct?

But consider the following conditionals.

Korea would not have been divided if Chine and Russian hadn’t helped North Korea.
is China and Russia root cause of the division because the conditional holds?
Korea would not have been divided if the UN force hadn’t helped South Korea.
Is the UN the root cause because the conditional holds??
Korea would not have been divided if South Korean hadn’t asked the UN for help.
Is the South Korea root cause because the conditional holds?

Anyway it looks to me that whatever kind of ‘root cause” you are considering, it seems obvious the apparent candidate of the major player for the division is not Japan. To me the major players of the division were Koreans and the US, Russia and China. If you call Japanese occupation a cause for the division, I would say it is a remote cause, if it is a cause at all. But you are picking only Japan in this context ignoring apparent players just as Korean ultra-nationalists would when they blame Japan, though they sometimes shift the blame to the US depending on their convenience.

This is off the topic, but I just want to discuss. no intention to troll.

Ponta,

Applying your “there is no real root cause” logic to Japan’s entry into WWII, I could argue that the US embargo is no more a cause of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor than the very fact that Japan existed. I would not argue this, but that is your logic. You, for some reason, are unable to connect the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910-1945 to the August 1945 Soviet-US agreement to divide the peninsula for the purpose of accepting the surrender of Japanese troops.

“To me the major players of the division were Koreans and the US, Russia and China. If you call Japanese occupation a cause for the division, I would say it is a remote cause, if it is a cause at all. But you are picking only Japan in this context ignoring apparent players just as Korean ultra-nationalists would when they blame Japan, though they sometimes shift the blame to the US depending on their convenience.”

I would agree with the contention that the Koreans, US, and Russia were the major players. Japan was not a player; it did not participate at all in the decision to divide the peninsula. However, its occupation set the stage for the division, and that is why is correct to identify it as a cause. The reason I mentioned Japan only is because the original topic was comparing Korea’s resentment of Japan to the feelings of other formely occupied Asian nations. Korea’s feelings towards Russia or the US are irrelevant. You are correct that Korean nationalists tend to shift blame between Japan or the US, whichever suits them.

Not all causes are volitional – that is to say that some actions or decisions lead to unexpected or unintended outcomes. Let me give you an example. Suppose I buy a new house with an expensive mortgage. Then the housing market crashes and my home is worth much less. I get a job transfer and have to sell the house at a loss.

cause-effect chain: lose money – sell house – market crashed – bought house with expensive mortgage

Now I didn’t have to buy that house. I could have bought a cheaper house, but I chose to buy the expensive one. I didn’t cause the housing market crash that robbed me of the value of my house.

Japan didn’t intend nor participate directly in the division of the Korean peninsula. Its occupation set in motion the chain of events that led to the division. It is a cause. It is not the main cause.

As for the comparison with Hawaii, if you really want to compare, go ahead. Maybe you can google some survey data and get back to us.

Sonagi
“Applying your “there is no real root cause” logic to Japan’s entry into WWII”
It is not my logic at all. I reserve the judgment what you mean by “root cause”
……….

Reading to the end, actually I understand my understanding is not so different from yours.
But just for fun.

“cause-effect chain: lose money – sell house – market crashed – bought house with expensive mortgage

Now I didn’t have to buy that house. I could have bought a cheaper house, but I chose to buy the expensive one. I didn’t cause the housing market crash that robbed me of the value of my house.
Japan didn’t intend nor participate directly in the division of the Korean peninsula. Its occupation set in motion the chain of events that led to the division. It is a cause. It is not the main cause.”

Now I am at a loss. your buying expensive house didn’t cause the house market crash, but do you still call your buying expensive house a cause, though not the main cause?
I am afraid this is not a good example. Without you, in normal circumstance, the house crash would have happened. hence, it is not cause at all.
And if Japanese occupation set in motion the chain that led to the divison, in the same sense, Korea’s first rejection to open the port set in the motion the chain that led to the division. No?

You said, “Koreans also bear the bitterness of continued division, whose origins can be traced back to Japanese rule. Had the Japanese not occupied Korea, Soviet and US forces wouldn’t have drawn a line at the 38 Parallel that still divides the country today into half slave and half free. It isn’t Japan’s fault that Korea is divided, but Japan’s occupation did set the stage for the division of the peninsula. Simply chalking up anti-Japanese feelings amongst the Koreans as mere nationalistic brainwashing does not explain fully the reasons why Koreans feel more hostile towards Japan than any other formerly occupied Asian nation.”

Japan is not the main cause for the division. It is not Japan’s fault in your understanding. Then does the division which is not Japan’s fault explain partly why Koreans are hostile toward Japanese without nationalistic brainwashing? Or are you saying Korean nationalist is right, , it is not brainwashing to feel hostile toward Japan partly because Japanese occupation “is the origin of the division and it is a good reason to hold hostility toward Japan?

. “As for the comparison with Hawaii, if you really want to compare, go ahead. Maybe you can google some survey data and get back to us.”
So after all you agree Hawaii was a legitimate candidate for comparison, don’t you?

Well ……..just for fun.
I just enjoyed the discussion. Thanks.

You guys are only focused on 1880 to 1945 as far as the relationship goes between Korea and Japan. The relationship between these countries goes all the way back to Japan’s origin. Read the book “From Paekche Korea to the origin of Yamato Japan”, you might get a little bit of a better understanding. Also, read all the written work in Japan between 4th century AD and 8th century AD. They are written in Korean. Historians are still debating why the Japanese wrote in Korean for 4 centuries, so until that is resloved you can figure out your own views. Think about why Japan was so obsessed with eradicating Korean culture, but not as obsessed with Taiwans. If you think about how similar the two cultures are in terms of pottery making style, sword making, grammar, silk production, sports, heirarchcy system, etc. Also, when they introduced these new things to Taiwan the culture was distinct enough that they didn’t think it was identical to their own even if the culture had its roots in China. But when they tried to introduce the Japanese culture in Korea, the Koreans would resist cause it was the same way they had been making pottery or swords for thousands of years. The Japanese were just asking the Koreans to pronounce the technique with a Japanese word and say it is Japanese culture. This caused alot of resistance. Even the words for the the techniques sounded similar, they were basically ancient Chinese root word, which the Koreans were using already with a Korean accent, now the Japanese were asking them to use it with a Japanese accent. The problem was that information from Asia flowed mainly from the contenint to the peninsula to Japan. Japan and Korea had very similar ways of doing things, different enough from Taiwan/China but nearly identical to each other.

Remember when the Japanese started opening the Imperial tombs in Japan they pulled out all Korean artifacts and distinctive Korean products such as horse culture at a time in Japanese history when japan didn’t have horses. This lead to a statement by the Imperial family to state that the tombs were holy and should not be disturbed by archeologists. They closed it from the public, but put in an all Japanese archeology team to dig up the tombs. They would let the world see what was coming out of the tombs. In the 1980’s Prince Aikito(when he was still prince, not yet the emperor) make an odd comment stating he felt a kinship to the Koreans cause of Japans Imperial families ancestory to them. These actions made alot of people wonder and many people wanted to explore the tombs archeologically. It wasn’t until recently that Japan stated they may open it up for international scholars to study in a controlled manner.

If you take their long historical relationship in to account you can see the difference in reaction to events. If the Japanese were to get upset at the Koreans cause of history they are not as direct about it. But when the Koreans are upset their is much more emotion associated with it cause they are still living with the aftermath of Japan’s WWII aggressions. You can even see similar reactions in modern day courts, the victims of a family murder/robbery will usually be screaming at the criminal and hope they get the maximun punishment, the criminal will usually be silent and angry at the people for screaming at them or if they do apologize they will make it vague in order not to incriminate themselves further. Always hoping for a lessor sentence and stating he/she has paid enough for the crime. Usually the victim will scream you haven’t paid enough what about the family member you killed, when will that victim come back, what is he/she paying for why is my family member still dead while you are now free and your family had been living of the money you stole from the victim getting a good education living well, while the victims family was starving and had no money for an education, etc.

You also have to look at the similarities and differences between Nazi Germany and Facist Japan. More than 26 million asians died, 6 million from Korea alone in WWII. Japan still pays tribute to the 2.5 million soldiers from WWII (including class A war criminals)
That would be like the head of state in Germany praying and paying tribute to Hitler and his generals for their sacrifice in WWII, then expecting no reaction from other countries stating it is a internal Japanese affair. (more than 26 million non-Japanese died (civilians, children, women etc)

Japan in the international setting states certain atrocities happened, but then when back in Japan the apology or statement is retracted and they say it was stated for political reasons. This causes a lot of confusion internationaly, especially when the apology most of the time are statement of general regret for a tragic past without any specifics for details. This is a complete contrast from the Germans.

WWII didn’t really end yet for the Koreans, they are still divided in two the reason being traced back to Japans aggressions in Asia.

This is just a bare glance at the relationship between these two countries, but these are the 2 points that they argue most about which are Japan’s origin and Japan’s invasions. Now taking that in to account you can see why it is so important for the book
“So far from the bamboo grove” to have a historical context. This book is usually introduced in english class and not a history class, most english teachers do not know enough about world history to properly set the historical context.

Historical context can explain the different reactions the two countries have, why one country more vocal and the other silently antagonistic.

While I applaud the fact that we are trying to include more asian literature in school for younger children, this is not the one.

I don’t want my child to be introduce to rape at such a young age.

The book also, is misleading cause even though it is suppose to be a fictional autobiography, it has enough real elements to it to make it distort history. The communist soldier in uniform do not appear in Korea until 1948, if their were soldiers in uniform in 1944 they were not Korean. The Japanese are not disarm immediately after their surrender. They still have their weapons long after Yoko’s family flees Korea, who the armed Japanese were getting raped by unarmed Koreans is questionable.

The United states and the Soviets state they did not bomb Northern Korea, there was little resistance, they came rolling in with out a major battle, so what bombing of Korea, Yoko Watkins is talking about is questionable.

With all these fictional insert embedded in to real countries with real histories makes things too confusing for a child.

No matter what, I don’t want rape to be introduced in this way cause the only way to make this book balanced would be to introduce Sex slaves (comfort women), Unit 731, and Nanking massacre. I don’t want these things to be introduced to a child in english class by a teacher who may not have the proper knowledge base for world history.