Korean nationalism on the rise?
Posted by Matt Dioguardi on May 4th, 2007
S. Korea to seize assets of colonial collaborators
The South Korean government announced Wednesday its first-ever plan to seize assets gained by alleged collaborators during Japan’s colonial rule. South Korea will confiscate 3.6 billion won ($ 3.9 million) worth of land from the descendants of nine alleged collaborators who worked for Japan during its 1910-1945 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula, a presidential committee said in a statement. The property owners can file a lawsuit to contest the government decision, the committee said. Committee head Kim Chang Kuk said in a statement that the seizures, the first of more to come, would enable South Korea “to recover our people’s dignity that was violated by Japanese imperialism and those involved in pro-Japanese and antinationalistic acts.”
The Colonial era ended over 60 years ago. Moreover, there was massive land reform after the war, wasn’t there?
Here’s a quote from Peasant Protest & Social Change in Colonial Korea by Gi-Wook Shin, pages 175 to 176 [emphasis added]:
In the South, in contrast, social revolution aborted ( Cumings 1981b; Song 1989). Landlord power remained stronger, and American occupational forces reestablished the colonial system by restoring to key positions Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese. Popular protests and demonstrations against such injustice and illegitimacy, culminating in the 1946 uprisings, were crushed by reactionary forces under the auspices of the American military government. Undoubtedly the “chilly memory” of such repression has strongly contributed to peasants’ subsequent political conservatism. Nevertheless, peasant radicalism in postwar South Korea achieved “liberal” land reform-liberal in the sense that land was redistributed to cultivators without eliminating capitalist relations in agricultural production, unlike “revolutionary” land reform in the North ( Kang 1988). The American military government and Korean government could no longer ignore the pressing demand for land reform, and landlord resistance failed to prevent its enactment. When colonial rule was over, big landlords, 3% of the rural population, controlled 60% of the land, while a remaining 80% of the rural population were landless tenants or semi-tenants with little land. But by 1957, after land reform, 88% of the rural population were full owner-cultivators. The ancient tenancy system was simply replaced by owner cultivation. Although land reform in the South was less complete than in the North, and “never enriched the peasantry” or “overflowed the state tax coffers,” it still created far more equitable income and land distribution, redirected capital away from land speculation to manufacturing, uprooted a class that had not proved itself progressive, and brought political stability in the countryside, thus clearing the way for strong centralized state power in the postreform era ( Amsden 1989). In short, land reform provided the structural preconditions for rapid and successful industrialization and economic growth after the 1960s.
What is the intention, to take the land away from those who weren’t even alive during the colonial era? It sounds like the land reform that took place after World War II, while not as complete as that of the North, was sufficient for its purpose, which was to get South Korea on the road to “successful industrialization and economic growth”.
Let’s never forget the past, but let’s put it behind us all the same. Is this political grandstanding? What’s the political motivation?
May 5th, 2007 at 1:38 am
In my opinion, if you consider the amount of time that has gone by since the end of the war, the one(s) responsible for starting the current drive to seize the assets acquired by “alleged collaborators”, stand to somehow profit from it.
I would argue that it could be that simple.
Of course, it’s just my opinion, and I can’t prove a thing.
However, it seems to me that China and both Koreas often link things to the past (while under the control of the evil Japanese) in an attempt at political and/or financial gain.
*Note to all Japan-bashers: I am not trying to excuse or defend any of the terrible deeds Japan did during and just prior to the war.*
Regards,
May 5th, 2007 at 7:09 am
This is a muddled issue. Korean nationalism is just as problematic as Japanese nationalism or American nationalism or Canadian nationalism. Nationalism is not so much wrong as it’s just incoherent. Actions taken by nationalists ARE often wrong and misguided. In the absence of a coherent philosophy, there’s nothing left for them to do but be political opportunists.
Children should not be punished for the crimes of their fathers. The fact that nationalists feel they should be, is revealing. For nationalists, it’s never that what was done was wrong, it’s that what was done, was done to them.
Here’s a quote from Time Magazine:
Right.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Hello.
It is quite interesting to see this news in an English
blog, at least for me.
Can you indicate where you find Japanese nationalism?
#as written in your comment
I believe the most problematic part of Japan is that
there are so much anti-japan teachers that can’t even
sing their national anthem, teach their students how
much Japan sucks. So there are a lot of people who
don’t take pride in their country, don’t love Japan.
When I used to live in the states, I had no problem
singing the US national anthem or pleding to the flag
every morning.
If we do the same thing in “public” schools here, all the
mass media will start commenting that it’s right wing,
with quite a few teachers going crazy.
So, as a Japanese, I would be happy if you could let me
realize where you find Japanese nationalism.
Thank you.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Haggy,
I am afraid that in my book, as a Japanese, you just scored.
You might also want to check out the Nationalists category for this blog.
You might also want to read up about the mayor of Tokyo.
Another interesting place to check out would be Shinzo Abe’s book, 美しい国へ. There, Abe explicitly identifies himself, and most Japanese, as nationalists. Read chapter three (especially the section that starts on page 97).
There Abe argues there are two kinds of nationalism:
1. Nationalism in the narrow (minded) sense.
2. Nationalism in the wide (hearted) sense.
Abe seems to handle the Nationalism issue much the same way he handles the comfort women issue, as a problem that can be defined away.
For the record, the number of teachers who actually protest the national anthem is, as a percentage, relatively insignificant. (Though certainly as individuals the teachers involved are anything but. I certainly admire them for standing by their principles. I feel very strongly they should be given their freedom not to participate. I feel much less strongly about the actual issue.)
Second, America does have problems with the pledge of the allegiance and school prayer. I’ve written about this here. I’ve heard there are, in fact, problems with the national anthem, but have never looked into this.
Finally, on the issue of Japan’s past as it’s taught in school, I agree, it is not handled well in schools. Looking into the issue, I’m not sure, but I’m beginning to get a sense that the intention of those on the left in Japan is indeed to make Japanese feel bad about being Japanese. I really hope I am wrong about that, but it is beginning to look a little bit like that to me.
Japanese should not be taught to feel bad for being Japanese. That’s completely misconstrued and only reinforces the message that Japanese are Japanese in some kind of essentialist sense. What a travesty.
Individuals in Japan need to be taught to think critically about the past and form their own independent opinions about what happened. That’s what education should be about.
Sadly, I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
Best,
Matt
May 6th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
In message 2 above, I quote a Time Magazine article without giving a link. Oops.
Here is the link:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1616731,00.html
May 6th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Hello Matt,
Thank you very much for your pointers.
I will surely have a look through them - and my apologize
for not looking through your entire blog before posting
a comment.
I have thought of commenting about nationalism with
a concrete example, though there weren’t good ones.
Kind regards,
Haggy