(no subject)
Peter Duus, The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).
Along with Korea Between Empires and Two Dreams in One Bed, I think this provides a nice little trio to survey Japanese-Korean relations in the late 19th/early 20th century - all three from different angles. Duus is honest in his introduction, and notes that this is very much a Japan-centered work because he couldn't read Korean; I think 'collaborators' do shine through, so it's not entirely one sided.
The book is essentially divided into two sections: the 'sword' (diplomatic/political/military maneuvering) and the 'abacus' (economic ties). Duus' first section - on the high level negotiations - is just brilliant, and pretty successfully refutes the idea that the Meiji government (as a whole) had its heart set on Korea early on - certainly, there were elements that hatched hair brained schemes involving full out invasions (or the elements that decided assassinating the Korean queen would just be a great idea), but on the whole, Japan was remarkably soft footed when it came to padding around the Korea issue. Duus gives an overview that is both understandable and remarkably complex - the various factions, in fighting, and discussions really leap off the page.
Japan's 'soft touch' has more with Japan's relation to foreign (Western) powers - I don't think it necessarily downplays the horrors of the Japanese occupation (esp. in a slightly later period than this book deals with). Duus seems to subscribe in part to the idea that if Korea had reformed/modernized/whatever, Japan would've been more likely to have been more 'hands off.' That is perhaps overstating his case, but I think it is safe to say that at the very least, he does not subscribe to the idea that Japan was hellbent on acquiring Korea at any cost & no matter the situation.
The second section was overkill & bloated a book that would've been much better without it. Perhaps it's because I've already read Two Dreams in One Bed, a much more recent work (admittedly on the Sino-Korean-Japanese intersection in Manchuria, not Korea proper), but a lot of the economic nitty gritty was a bit much. However, his last chapter "Defining the Koreans" was FABULOUS in giving an overview as to how Japan constructed Korea in opposition to Japan - since racial distinctions that made a lot of Western imperialism so 'natural' didn't exist. Still, Japanese politicians and intellectuals made the distinction natural. Japanese travel accounts, descriptions of the populace, and a discussion of history and linguistics inextricably linked Korea and Japan at points while placing Japan firmly in the position of power and 'modernity.' His conclusion was also excellent.
I'd absolutely assign the first part of this book, suggest skimming most of the second; the last proper chapter seems like it would be fine to pull out as a single chapter to illustrate how some Japanese set up the dichotomy of Korea/Japan and justified stepping away from the 'light hand.'
One thing that strikes me about this volume & Two Dreams in One Bed is that China was in a superior position in many respects - diplomatically and militarily, Japan certainly was on top, but economically (and potentially socially, esp. in the case of Manchuria), China had the leverage:
Chinese merchants did not encounter the cultural hostility the Japanese often experienced. While the Koreans looked down on the Japanese as vulgar, money-grubbing "dwarf barbarians," they regarded the Chinese as bearers of civilization .... Japanese consuls also complained that the Japanese traders, who were in search of quick profits and had little interest in developing long-term trade, were often cold and brutal in their dealings with Koreans. By contrast, the Chinese merchants were cordial and ingratiating, cultivating their customers and doing their best to accommodate them. All other things being equal, the Koreans were more inclined to deal with the Chinese than with the Japanese (256-7)
As Duus goes on to say, all other things were not equal and China had some very real economic and 'managerial' advantages over Japan. This is not unlike the scenario laid out in Two Dreams. Japan didn't roll in with the upper hand.
A passage I particularly liked, from the first few pages of the last chapter (on the description of one Japanese Diet member who travelled to Korea shortly after the Russo-Japanese War, and his response to 'What kind of people are the Koreans?' - the part after a section delineating the similarities):
If you look closely [at the Koreans], they appear to be a bit vacant, their mouths open and their eyes dull, somehow lacking .... In the lines of their mouths and faces you can discern a certain looseness, and when it comes to sanitation or sickness, they are loose in the extreme. Indeed, to put it in the worst terms, one could eve say that they are closer to beasts than to human beings
The rhetorical sweep of this passage is astonishing: in the space of a paragraph or two the familiar-looking Koreans are dehumanized, their exterior stripped away to reveal a beast within. The paradox of Korean identity, expressed with exceptional starkness in [the Diet member]'s observations, complicated all attempts to construct clear relationships between the Japanese and the Koreans. (398)
Like reading Japanese writing on the Chinese, or Western writing on the darker skinned Other, I find this sort of stuff exquisitely painful to read. The visual representations in the form of cartoons and other types of drawings is frequently so ridiculous (from the vantage point of today) as to be laughable, but eloquent and venomous words are harder to shake off. The issue of how we dehumanize others in order to justify our behavior towards them seems to be an issue for psychologists, not historians, yet we are not infrequently tasked with dealing with the issue ....
Along with Korea Between Empires and Two Dreams in One Bed, I think this provides a nice little trio to survey Japanese-Korean relations in the late 19th/early 20th century - all three from different angles. Duus is honest in his introduction, and notes that this is very much a Japan-centered work because he couldn't read Korean; I think 'collaborators' do shine through, so it's not entirely one sided.
The book is essentially divided into two sections: the 'sword' (diplomatic/political/military maneuvering) and the 'abacus' (economic ties). Duus' first section - on the high level negotiations - is just brilliant, and pretty successfully refutes the idea that the Meiji government (as a whole) had its heart set on Korea early on - certainly, there were elements that hatched hair brained schemes involving full out invasions (or the elements that decided assassinating the Korean queen would just be a great idea), but on the whole, Japan was remarkably soft footed when it came to padding around the Korea issue. Duus gives an overview that is both understandable and remarkably complex - the various factions, in fighting, and discussions really leap off the page.
Japan's 'soft touch' has more with Japan's relation to foreign (Western) powers - I don't think it necessarily downplays the horrors of the Japanese occupation (esp. in a slightly later period than this book deals with). Duus seems to subscribe in part to the idea that if Korea had reformed/modernized/whatever, Japan would've been more likely to have been more 'hands off.' That is perhaps overstating his case, but I think it is safe to say that at the very least, he does not subscribe to the idea that Japan was hellbent on acquiring Korea at any cost & no matter the situation.
The second section was overkill & bloated a book that would've been much better without it. Perhaps it's because I've already read Two Dreams in One Bed, a much more recent work (admittedly on the Sino-Korean-Japanese intersection in Manchuria, not Korea proper), but a lot of the economic nitty gritty was a bit much. However, his last chapter "Defining the Koreans" was FABULOUS in giving an overview as to how Japan constructed Korea in opposition to Japan - since racial distinctions that made a lot of Western imperialism so 'natural' didn't exist. Still, Japanese politicians and intellectuals made the distinction natural. Japanese travel accounts, descriptions of the populace, and a discussion of history and linguistics inextricably linked Korea and Japan at points while placing Japan firmly in the position of power and 'modernity.' His conclusion was also excellent.
I'd absolutely assign the first part of this book, suggest skimming most of the second; the last proper chapter seems like it would be fine to pull out as a single chapter to illustrate how some Japanese set up the dichotomy of Korea/Japan and justified stepping away from the 'light hand.'
One thing that strikes me about this volume & Two Dreams in One Bed is that China was in a superior position in many respects - diplomatically and militarily, Japan certainly was on top, but economically (and potentially socially, esp. in the case of Manchuria), China had the leverage:
Chinese merchants did not encounter the cultural hostility the Japanese often experienced. While the Koreans looked down on the Japanese as vulgar, money-grubbing "dwarf barbarians," they regarded the Chinese as bearers of civilization .... Japanese consuls also complained that the Japanese traders, who were in search of quick profits and had little interest in developing long-term trade, were often cold and brutal in their dealings with Koreans. By contrast, the Chinese merchants were cordial and ingratiating, cultivating their customers and doing their best to accommodate them. All other things being equal, the Koreans were more inclined to deal with the Chinese than with the Japanese (256-7)
As Duus goes on to say, all other things were not equal and China had some very real economic and 'managerial' advantages over Japan. This is not unlike the scenario laid out in Two Dreams. Japan didn't roll in with the upper hand.
A passage I particularly liked, from the first few pages of the last chapter (on the description of one Japanese Diet member who travelled to Korea shortly after the Russo-Japanese War, and his response to 'What kind of people are the Koreans?' - the part after a section delineating the similarities):
If you look closely [at the Koreans], they appear to be a bit vacant, their mouths open and their eyes dull, somehow lacking .... In the lines of their mouths and faces you can discern a certain looseness, and when it comes to sanitation or sickness, they are loose in the extreme. Indeed, to put it in the worst terms, one could eve say that they are closer to beasts than to human beings
The rhetorical sweep of this passage is astonishing: in the space of a paragraph or two the familiar-looking Koreans are dehumanized, their exterior stripped away to reveal a beast within. The paradox of Korean identity, expressed with exceptional starkness in [the Diet member]'s observations, complicated all attempts to construct clear relationships between the Japanese and the Koreans. (398)
Like reading Japanese writing on the Chinese, or Western writing on the darker skinned Other, I find this sort of stuff exquisitely painful to read. The visual representations in the form of cartoons and other types of drawings is frequently so ridiculous (from the vantage point of today) as to be laughable, but eloquent and venomous words are harder to shake off. The issue of how we dehumanize others in order to justify our behavior towards them seems to be an issue for psychologists, not historians, yet we are not infrequently tasked with dealing with the issue ....