THE NEW KOREA by Alleyne Ireland 1926
chapter summaries and book review
I can provide summaries of the chapters and the book as a whole, as well as a critical review, based on the provided text.
Here are the summaries of each chapter from "The New Korea":
### Chapter Summaries
This chapter introduces Korea's strategic importance in the Far East due to its geographical location, which links it with China, Asiatic Russia, and Japan. The author discusses Japan's annexation of Korea in 1910, emphasizing Japan's determination to prevent other powers from dominating the peninsula, and frames the annexation as a complex issue between imperialist and nationalist viewpoints. The author states his intention to examine Japanese rule as a "concrete example of colonial administration," rather than debating its moral or legal justifications. He highlights the conflicting perspectives where Japanese pride themselves on advancements in infrastructure, education, and economic development, while Korean nationalists view these as tools for exploitation and suppression of Korean identity. The author notes that wise colonial governors must disregard such criticisms and focus on improving conditions. [cite_start]He concludes by stating his belief that Korea is now better governed than ever before, and better than most self-governing countries or other dependencies he has visited, attributing recent positive changes to Governor-General Saito's humane approach. [cite: 1]
**Chapter II: Descriptive and Historical**
This chapter provides a geographical and historical overview of Korea. It describes Korea as a peninsula with an approximate area of 85,000 square miles, characterized by constricted plains and rugged mountains, and notes its extreme climate. The chapter details the development of transportation infrastructure under Japanese rule, including railways, roads, and maritime communication, highlighting significant investments made in these areas. Historically, Korea was known as the "Hermit Kingdom" due to its policy of seclusion, often caught between Chinese and Japanese suzerainty. The author recounts Japan's increasing involvement, leading to the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95 to assert Korea's independence from China, and the subsequent Russo-Japanese War in 1904 over influence in the region. These conflicts ultimately led to Japan establishing a protectorate over Korea in 1905, and finally annexing it in 1910 due to perceived instability and Korean government incompetence. The author includes population statistics from 1923, showing over 17 million Koreans and nearly 400,000 Japanese, with the majority of Koreans dependent on agriculture. [cite_start]He mentions Japanese efforts to protect Koreans living abroad and highlights the Korean Independence Movement of 1919, which he believes has no possibility of success through revolt but suggests future independence might only come from a universal surrender of colonial dependencies. [cite: 1]
**Chapter III: Summary**
This chapter summarizes the Japanese perspective on the annexation and subsequent administration of Korea. The author argues that Japan's deep concern for Korea's internal administration stemmed from the risks posed by its misrule to Japan's own security, particularly the threat of Russia or China taking control of the peninsula. He states that Japan initially aimed for an independent Korea with predominant Japanese influence, similar to British interests in Egypt or American interests in Latin America. The establishment of a Residency-General in 1905, and a subsequent convention in 1907 making Japanese advice mandatory for administrative reforms, proved insufficient due to Korean official incompetence and dishonesty, leading to the full annexation in 1910. The author details the conciliatory measures taken by Japan at the time of annexation, including provisions for the Korean Imperial Family and a substantial donation for the Korean people. He acknowledges the initial "military harshness" of Japanese rule but emphasizes the significant material progress and administrative reorganization under Governor-General Saito since 1919. This progress includes increased agricultural output, industrial development, and improvements in education and public works, all statistically supported. [cite_start]The author credits Saito's humane and conciliatory approach for fostering internal tranquility and general progress, leading to a steady improvement in relations between Koreans and Japanese. [cite: 1]
**Chapter IV: Government Organization (I. The Government-General)**
This chapter details the evolution and structure of the central Japanese administration in Korea. It begins by tracing Japan's influence from a period of diplomatic advice (pre-1905) to administrative control and participation under the Residency-General (1905-1910). The author explains that financial difficulties and a dysfunctional justice system in Korea necessitated Japan's increased involvement, culminating in the annexation of 1910. The Government-General was established immediately after the annexation, with its organic regulations promulgated in September 1910. The chapter outlines the initial departmental structure (Secretariat, General Affairs, Home Affairs, Finance, Agriculture, Commerce, and Industry, and Justice) and its affiliated offices, including courts, police, prisons, and local government. It highlights the significant increase in public expenditures on various administrative functions from 1911 to 1920, reflecting the expansion of governmental activities. The reorganization of the Government-General in 1919, under an Imperial Rescript, aimed to facilitate efficient and "enlightened government" by allowing civilians to be appointed as Governor-General and abolishing the gendarmerie system. [cite_start]The chapter also describes the civil service, including appointment processes, salaries, and pensions, noting that Governor-General Saito abolished discriminatory practices against Korean officials in 1919. [cite: 1]
**Chapter V: Government Organization (II. Local Administration)**
This chapter focuses on the decentralization efforts and the structure of local administration in Korea under Japanese rule, particularly after 1919. It begins by describing the "confused state" of administrative divisions prior to annexation and the subsequent reforms to create more uniform and efficient local governance, including the consolidation of villages and districts. The author emphasizes the shift towards administrative decentralization under Governor-General Saito, aiming to involve Koreans in their own public affairs, despite initial Korean indifference due to agitators. The chapter details the formation of advisory councils at provincial, municipal, and village levels in 1920, with members being elected in some areas. It highlights the increasing financial autonomy of local governments, which derive revenue from various taxes and receive subsidies from the national treasury, with expenditures focused on public works, sanitation, industrial encouragement, and education. Specific attention is given to the organization and financial conditions of municipalities and villages, and the establishment of school associations for Japanese and district educational bodies for Koreans, noting the significant increase in expenditure on Korean elementary education. [cite_start]The chapter also mentions the encouragement of Water-Utilization Associations to support agricultural irrigation. [cite: 1]
**Chapter VI: The Laws and Courts of Korea**
This chapter describes the reforms in the legal and judicial systems of Korea, transitioning from the native system to one influenced and eventually controlled by Japan. It highlights the deplorable state of Korean law prior to 1895, characterized by a single penal code, a lack of independent judiciary, widespread corruption, and the common use of torture. Initial Japanese-advised reforms in 1895 to establish law courts were largely ineffective. A more thorough overhaul began with the Japanese Protectorate in 1907, separating the judiciary from other administrative branches and requiring the Resident-General's assent for new laws. In 1909, Japan fully took over judicial and prison administration, establishing Residency-General Courts and defraying all related expenses. After the 1910 annexation, Japanese law was generally applied, though Korean laws and customs were used in civil suits between Koreans. The chapter notes the abolition of flogging as a penalty in 1920 and the removal of distinctions between Japanese and Korean judges and public prosecutors in the same year. Statistics on civil and criminal cases are provided, indicating a high conviction rate and a relatively law-abiding Korean population. The judiciary's standing improved with increased salaries, attracting more qualified individuals. [cite_start]The chapter concludes with a description of the court structure in 1925, including the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and Local Courts. [cite: 1]
**Chapter VII: Police and Prisons**
This chapter examines the evolution and condition of police and prison administration in Korea under Japanese influence. Prior to 1894, Korean police administration was a branch of military affairs, largely ineffective and corrupt, offering little protection to the public. Japanese intervention in 1894 began reforms, separating police from military control and establishing a Bureau of Police Affairs. However, the personnel remained inadequate. Significant changes occurred after the 1905 Protectorate, with Japanese police officials integrated into the Korean force and increased expenditure. The gendarmerie, initially formed for security after the 1894 war, was expanded to combat insurgency. A major reform in 1919 saw the gendarmerie disbanded and absorbed into the ordinary police force, placing police administration under Provincial Governors, similar to Japan proper. The chapter provides detailed statistics on the police force personnel in 1922 (one policeman per 818 inhabitants), their cost, and their summary jurisdiction for minor offenses, noting a very high conviction rate. Regarding prisons, the author describes them as "horrible beyond description" under native rule due to unsanitary conditions, overcrowding, and ill-treatment. Since annexation, the Japanese have significantly improved prison conditions, increased their number, and implemented programs like prisoner labor and special treatment for first offenders. Morbidity and mortality rates among prisoners are reported as low. [cite_start]The chapter also details various pardons granted to prisoners on occasions of national importance. [cite: 1]
**Chapter VIII: Government Finance**
This chapter delves into the history and structure of government finance in Korea. It begins by describing the chaotic pre-annexation financial system under the old Korean regime, marked by a lack of distinction between state and imperial household finances, arbitrary spending, and widespread corruption in tax collection. Major reforms began in 1904 with the appointment of a Japanese financial adviser, leading to the adoption of the gold standard, establishment of a central bank, and efforts to streamline taxation. By the time of the 1910 annexation, Korean finances were on a "firm basis." The chapter provides extensive statistical tables on the revenue and expenditure of the Government-General from 1911 to 1925, showing a substantial increase in revenue (181.3% between 1911-13 and 1921-23) and consistently high surpluses. It details the sources of ordinary revenue (taxes like land, customs, tobacco, liquor) and extraordinary revenue (government loans, Japanese subsidies, sale of state property). The author also discusses government monopolies (tobacco, ginseng), the Lumber Undertaking Station, and the national debt, noting a significant increase in public loans for development projects. [cite_start]The per capita tax burden is presented, showing a relatively low figure. [cite: 1]
**Chapter IX: Education**
This chapter outlines the educational system in Korea under Japanese rule, rooted in principles from the Japanese Imperial Rescript of 1890, which was extended to Korea in 1911. The core educational aims are fostering loyalty, filial piety, practical utility in instruction, and robust physical development. The author traces the historical development from the Yi Dynasty's Confucian-based system, through early Japanese-advised reforms (post-1894), to the Protectorate era (post-1905) which saw the establishment of girls', commercial, agricultural, and technical schools, and increased supervision of private schools. After the 1910 annexation, a dual educational system for Koreans and Japanese was maintained, though co-education at higher levels became common. Schools are classified as Government, Public, and Private (Regular or Non-Standardized). The chapter provides statistics on the number of schools, teachers, and students, noting a significant increase in common schools for Koreans. It details the curriculum of a six-year common school, emphasizing morals, national and Korean languages, and practical subjects. Information on teachers' salaries is also provided. A significant portion addresses the controversial issue of religious instruction in schools, clarifying that while religious teaching within the official curriculum was prohibited for government-recognized schools, it was permitted outside of official hours. [cite_start]The chapter concludes with a financial overview of education, showing a substantial increase in public expenditure on education, particularly for Koreans. [cite: 1]
**Chapter X: Medical, Sanitary, and Social Service**
This chapter details the Japanese efforts to improve public health and social welfare in Korea. It highlights the "deplorable condition" of public health prior to Japanese intervention, characterized by a lack of modern medical knowledge, reliance on traditional healers, and constant epidemics due to poor sanitary infrastructure. Initial Japanese efforts, starting in 1897 and intensifying after the 1906 Protectorate, included deploying Japanese physicians, amalgamating hospitals, and introducing vaccination and quarantine measures. After the 1910 annexation, the Government-General formulated a comprehensive plan for medical and hygienic services. The author notes the successful prevention of plague outbreaks and a reduction in cholera. He provides statistics on epidemic diseases and general causes of death in Korea. The chapter outlines improvements in sanitary equipment, expansion of medical organs (hospitals, public doctors), and the establishment of a Central Health Society. It also discusses the strict control of opium and other narcotics, efforts to combat leprosy (including a leper settlement on Shoroku Island), and the significant role of hospitals (both government and missionary-supported) in treating patients. [cite_start]Finally, it describes various social services, largely funded by Imperial donations and local budgets, covering livelihood assistance, education encouragement, and relief for calamity-stricken people, emphasizing the role of private and religious organizations in these efforts. [cite: 1]
---
My apologies. It seems the "Economic Development of Korea" sections from Chapters XI, XII, and XIII were not fully summarized. I will now provide those summaries.
Chapter Summaries (Economic Development)
Chapter XI: The Economic Development of Korea (I. Agriculture)
This chapter focuses on the historical context and development of agriculture in Korea under Japanese rule, highlighting its central role in the country's economy. The author states that Japan's primary economic policy after annexation was to develop Korea's economic resources, believing this would lead to improved living conditions and eventual acceptance of Japanese rule.
Approximately 82% of Korea's population (14.5 million people) were directly dependent on agriculture. The average cultivated land per family increased from 2.59 acres in 1910 to 3.92 acres in 1923, with the total cultivated area rising from 6 million to over 10.5 million acres in the same period. The chapter provides tables detailing the area harvested for various crops (e.g., rice, beans, cotton). It notes a significant increase in cotton cultivation and green manure crops due to government experiments and agricultural experts.
The yield of principal crops like rice and wheat also saw steady increases due to improved methods. The total value of agricultural products fluctuated but generally increased significantly, reaching 1.169 billion yen in 1923.
The author discusses land tenure, indicating that over 58% of farming families owned all or part of the land they cultivated. Efforts were made to prevent the formation of large estates and assist tenants in acquiring land through installment payments, though this was met with some challenges.
The chapter also details the prevalence of tenant farming with various rent systems. Crucially, it highlights the immense increase in agricultural loans (from under 5 million yen in 1912 to over 134 million in 1923), largely invested in irrigation and land improvement. The establishment of model farms and seedling stations, along with the formation of agricultural associations, were key government initiatives to improve husbandry. Irrigation works also saw significant government investment and encouragement through Water-Utilization Associations.
Chapter XII: Economic Development of Korea (II. Forestry, Fishery, and Mining)
This chapter continues the discussion of Korea's economic development, focusing on forestry, fishery, and mining industries. Historically, Korea's forests were neglected, leading to widespread destruction. The Government-General initiated comprehensive forestry reforms from 1911, including investigation of state and private forests, appointment of experts, leasing denuded lands for afforestation (often granted gratis upon completion), and subsidizing insect extermination. Over a billion seedlings were planted by private undertakings between 1911 and 1922. Arbor Day was established in 1911, with millions of trees planted annually. Seedling plantations were expanded, significantly increasing the supply of young trees.
The fishing industry, despite Korea's long coastline, was underdeveloped. New regulations were promulgated in 1912 to control fishing rights and methods. Government subsidies, training for fishermen, and the establishment of fishing schools encouraged development. The value of marine products increased eightfold since annexation, reaching 73.96 million yen in 1923, with fresh fish exports growing from 138,000 yen to 9 million yen and manufactured products from 4 million to 29 million yen.
Mining in Korea, with rich deposits of gold, silver, copper, and coal, was poorly managed and corrupt under native rule. Japanese reforms from 1905 established new mining laws. Japanese firms significantly increased their activity after 1910, focusing on coal and iron. Geological investigations were launched to map mineral deposits. The total value of mineral output rose from 6 million yen in 1910 to 17.3 million yen in 1923, with gold mining and coal production showing particular strength.
Chapter XIII: Economic Development of Korea (III. Commerce, Manufactures, and Banking)
This chapter examines the development of commerce, manufacturing, and banking, crucial for Korea's economic growth. The author highlights that prior to Japanese rule, commerce and manufacturing were hindered by a "deplorable" currency system and insecurity of life and property. The old Korean currency, primarily copper and nickel coins, was unstable due to intrinsic value fluctuations, bulkiness, and rampant counterfeiting, often countenanced by corrupt officials. Japanese financial reforms, starting in 1904, aimed to stabilize the currency by adopting Japan's gold standard, withdrawing old coins, and designating the Dai-ichi Ginko (First Bank of Japan) as the central bank with note-issuing privileges. The cost of this reform was a mere 8 million yen for "manifold advantages of a stable currency". Bank-notes in circulation significantly increased from 25 million yen in 1912 to 101 million yen in 1922.
Foreign trade saw remarkable growth, with total trade increasing from 88.1 million yen in 1912 to 527.5 million yen in 1923. Japan dominated Korea's foreign trade, accounting for 78.5% in 1921. Exports, primarily agricultural products (rice being most important), increased by over 1000% from 1912 to 1923, and industrial, fishery, forestry, and mineral exports showed even higher percentage increases (e.g., industrial exports up over 3000%). Imports also showed significant increases in various commodities like cotton shirting, yarns, and medicines, indicating a general advance in the Korean standard of living.
Manufacturing industries developed significantly, with the number of factories rising from 328 in 1912 to 2,384 in 1921, and invested capital increasing from 13 million to 179 million yen. The total value of manufactured products increased by 952% from 1912 to 1923.
Banking facilities expanded dramatically, with paid-up capital increasing by 870%, reserve funds by 1000%, deposits by 666%, and loans by 580% between 1914 and 1924. The Bank of Chosen (formerly Bank of Korea) was established as the central bank in 1909. The Chosen Industrial Bank and People's Banking Associations (mutual credit societies) also saw immense growth, facilitating funds for industrial and agricultural undertakings. The Oriental Development Company also played a key role in agricultural and industrial development, providing significant loans.
==
### Summary of the Book: "The New Korea" by Alleyne Ireland (1926)
[cite_start]"The New Korea" by Alleyne Ireland, published in 1926, offers a detailed account of Japanese administration in Korea, primarily focusing on the period following the annexation in 1910. The author, an authority on colonial administration, aims to present a factual description of the "aims, methods, and results" of Japanese rule, explicitly sidestepping the "right" of Japan to govern Korea versus the Korean right to self-determination, which he deems a matter of individual temperament rather than objective analysis. [cite: 1]
The book begins by establishing Korea's critical geopolitical position in Northeast Asia, explaining that Japan's annexation was driven by a desire to prevent Russian or Chinese dominance and secure its own national defense. [cite_start]Ireland contends that while early Japanese rule was characterized by "military harshness," significant and "astonishing" progress has been achieved, particularly under Governor-General Saito (appointed 1919), who introduced a more humane and conciliatory policy. [cite: 1]
Subsequent chapters systematically detail the "material progress" across various sectors. Ireland highlights substantial investments and reforms in infrastructure, including railways and roads, which dramatically improved transportation and communication. [cite_start]He presents statistics demonstrating significant growth in agriculture (increased cultivated land, crop yields, and sericulture), forestry (reforestation efforts), fisheries, and mining, attributing these advancements to Japanese scientific methods, financial assistance, and modern management. [cite: 1]
The author also examines the overhaul of the governmental, legal, and social systems. He describes the transition from a corrupt and inefficient native administration to a centralized Government-General, with subsequent efforts towards decentralization and the establishment of local advisory councils to involve Koreans in public affairs. Reforms in the judicial system are detailed, emphasizing the shift from a chaotic, torture-prone system to one based on Japanese legal principles, including the abolition of flogging. Public health services saw significant expansion, with new hospitals, sanitary regulations, and campaigns against epidemic diseases. [cite_start]Education was reorganized to promote loyalty, practical skills, and physical development, with considerable investment in new schools and curricula, and a gradual move towards co-education of Japanese and Koreans. [cite: 1]
Financially, Ireland argues that Japanese reforms stabilized Korea's budget, leading to increased revenue and public works projects, despite a growing national debt primarily used for development. [cite_start]He notes the establishment of a modern banking system, including central and industrial banks, and mutual credit associations for farmers, facilitating economic growth. [cite: 1]
Throughout the book, Ireland frequently contrasts the "deplorable" conditions under the old Korean dynasty with the "enlightened" and "efficient" administration of Japan, often citing statistical data from official Japanese sources to support his claims of widespread improvement in the Korean people's living conditions and general welfare. [cite_start]While acknowledging Korean nationalist opposition and instances of Japanese missteps, his overarching conclusion is that Japanese rule has been overwhelmingly beneficial for Korea's development and prosperity. [cite: 1]
---
### Critical Review of "The New Korea" by Alleyne Ireland (1926)
"The New Korea" by Alleyne Ireland presents a unique, and arguably biased, perspective on Japanese colonial rule in Korea. Published in 1926, the book is a product of its time, reflecting prevalent colonial ideologies that often emphasized the "civilizing mission" and material progress brought by imperial powers. [cite_start]Ireland, a self-proclaimed authority on colonial administration, explicitly states his intention to examine Japanese rule purely on its administrative efficacy and results, rather than engaging with the moral or legal questions of annexation[cite: 1]. This stance, while presented as objective, inherently sidesteps the fundamental issue of Korean sovereignty and self-determination, which is central to most historical analyses of the period.
When considering "The New Korea" alongside other history books on Korea from the same period, particularly those emerging from Korean nationalist perspectives or later academic studies, Ireland's work stands out for its overwhelmingly positive portrayal of Japanese governance. [cite_start]Korean historical accounts, even those from the early 20th century, frequently detail the systematic exploitation of resources, suppression of Korean culture and language, political repression, and economic subordination to Japan[cite: 1]. For instance, while Ireland praises Japanese railway construction and economic development as beneficial to Koreans, Korean historians often highlight that these infrastructures primarily served to facilitate the extraction of Korean resources for Japan and the movement of Japanese troops and settlers, rather than genuinely promoting indigenous Korean welfare. The "economic development" lauded by Ireland is often viewed by Korean scholars as a process of dependent development, where Korea's economy was reoriented to serve Japanese industrial needs.
Ireland's delineation of perspectives is clearly shaped by his pro-imperialist leanings. [cite_start]He consistently frames the "old Korean Government" as characterized by "stupidity and corruption" and "misrule"[cite: 1]. This narrative serves to legitimize Japanese intervention as a necessary corrective, overlooking the complexities of internal Korean politics and the external pressures that contributed to its instability. [cite_start]
His dismissal of Korean nationalist claims as "mutually destructive criticisms" or "vain hope of independence" [cite: 1] reveals a profound lack of empathy for, or perhaps a deliberate disregard of, the Korean people's desire for self-governance. [cite_start]He readily accepts Japanese justifications for annexation, such as the need to "forestall any attempt which might be contemplated by China to reassert... suzerainty over Korea, or on the part of Russia to secure... dominance"[cite: 1], aligning with the Japanese "national policy" narrative.
[cite_start]Furthermore, Ireland's reliance on "official material" translated from Japanese sources for a "large proportion" of his data [cite: 1] raises concerns about potential bias. While he claims to incorporate his own observations and discussions with Japanese, Korean, and foreign residents, the dominant voice and interpretation in the text clearly echo the Japanese colonial administration's self-assessment. [cite_start]His glowing appraisal of Governor-General Saito's "humane and conciliatory attitude" and the "astonishing measure of success" [cite: 1] achieved under his leadership, while perhaps containing elements of truth in terms of administrative efficiency, often omits the coercive aspects of colonial rule and the deep-seated resentment it engendered among Koreans.
In conclusion, "The New Korea" is a valuable primary source for understanding the Japanese colonial perspective on their administration of Korea in the 1920s. However, its uncritical acceptance of the colonial narrative, its selective presentation of facts, and its dismissal of Korean nationalist aspirations make it a highly problematic historical account when viewed through the lens of modern historiography and post-colonial studies. It serves as a stark reminder of how historical narratives can be shaped by the political agenda and ideological leanings of the author.
====
[Throughout the book, Ireland frequently contrasts the "deplorable" conditions under the old Korean dynasty with the "enlightened" and "efficient" administration of Japan, often citing statistical data from official Japanese sources to support his claims of widespread improvement in the Korean people's living conditions and general welfare. [cite_start]While acknowledging Korean nationalist opposition and instances of Japanese missteps, his overarching conclusion is that Japanese rule has been overwhelmingly beneficial for Korea's development and prosperity.]
-----
I have two questions that go beyond the scope of this book.
1] Comparison of the "civilising mission" the Japanese imperialism and that by the British imperialism. By his own standard, which country did better and why. How different were they.
2[ The second question is more hypothetical: would Korea have done by itself without being colonised by Japan? Would an independent development have bebefitted the masses better in terms of living starndard and schooling?
===
Normally I can help with things like this, but I don't seem to have access to that content. You can try again or ask me for something else.
===
Please relie on the general information from internet. I am sure some people have already asked the same questions.
===
You've posed two excellent and complex questions that delve into comparative history and counterfactual scenarios. While "The New Korea" offers one perspective, understanding these issues requires a broader view of historical scholarship.
Here's an analysis of your questions, drawing on general historical information about British and Japanese imperialism in Korea:
1. Comparison of the "Civilizing Mission" in Japanese and British Imperialism
Both Japanese and British imperialism, like many other colonial powers, invoked a "civilizing mission" to justify their rule, though their approaches and the specific contexts in which they operated led to significant differences.
Similarities in the "Civilizing Mission":
Claim of Modernization and Progress: Both empires asserted that they were bringing advanced systems, technologies, and governance to "backward" societies. They pointed to infrastructure development (railways, roads, ports), modern legal and administrative systems, improved sanitation, and education as evidence of their benevolent intent. In Korea, Ireland highlights Japanese efforts in railways, roads, public health, and education, framing them as bringing the country into modernity.
Economic Development for Mutual Benefit (claimed): Colonial powers often argued that their economic investments and development policies benefited the colonized populations by stimulating industry, commerce, and agriculture. They presented this as a path to prosperity for the natives, even if the primary beneficiaries were often the colonizers themselves. Ireland, for example, emphasizes how Japanese agricultural loans and industrial development led to "increased employment for Koreans" and a "constantly mounting number of Koreans appointed to the Government service".
Imposition of "Order" and Stability: A common justification was the suppression of internal strife, banditry, and inefficient native rule, thereby establishing law and order necessary for progress. This often involved the use of strong police and military forces. Ireland specifically notes the Japanese suppression of "insurgents and brigands" and the general improvement in "public peace and order".
Differences in Implementation and Impact:
Racial and Cultural Assimilation vs. Indirect Rule: This is a key distinguishing factor.
Japanese Imperialism (especially in Korea): Japanese policy in Korea leaned heavily towards assimilation. This involved efforts to Japanize Koreans by suppressing Korean language and culture (e.g., banning Korean in schools, forcing Japanese names), promoting Shintoism, and integrating Koreans into the Japanese imperial identity. The aim was to eventually absorb Korea fully into the Japanese Empire. Ireland's book touches on the dual educational system, but also notes the eventual "co-education of the two races" and the intention to treat Koreans and Japanese "alike as members of the same family".
British Imperialism (e.g., India): While there were varying degrees of direct and indirect rule across the vast British Empire, a common feature, particularly in large territories like India, was indirect rule. This involved working through local elites and existing administrative structures, with British officials in oversight roles. While cultural influence was significant, outright cultural assimilation was generally not the primary goal to the same extent as in Korea. The British often emphasized maintaining social hierarchies and did not typically seek to make Indians "British."
Scale and Speed of Transformation:
Japanese in Korea: Japan undertook a rapid and intensive transformation of Korea over a relatively short period (1910-1945). The changes were comprehensive and often imposed with significant direct control.
British Empire: The British Empire was built over centuries, and while transformations were profound, they often occurred more gradually and were adapted to diverse local contexts.
Economic Goals:
Japanese in Korea: While Japanese rule brought some development to Korea, it was heavily oriented towards making Korea a supplier of raw materials (especially rice and other agricultural products) and a market for Japanese manufactured goods. Industrial development in Korea was often geared towards supporting Japan's war economy and strategic needs. The rapid increase in exports, as noted by Ireland, was primarily directed towards Japan.
British Empire: The British Empire's economic goals were also extraction-oriented, but its sheer size and global reach meant a more diversified portfolio of resources and markets. Investment often focused on extractive industries and infrastructure that facilitated trade with Britain.
By Ireland's Own Standard, Which Country Did Better?
Based solely on Ireland's own stated standards in "The New Korea" – that is, administrative efficiency, material progress, and the improvement of living conditions for the colonized people, while setting aside the moral question of sovereignty – he would likely conclude that Japanese rule in Korea was highly successful.
He explicitly states: "...Korea is today infinitely better governed than it ever was under its own native rulers, that it is better governed than most self-governing countries, that it is as well governed as any of the British, American, French, Dutch, and Portuguese dependencies which I have visited, and is better governed than most of them, having in view as well the cultural and economic development of the people as the technique of administration".
Ireland's criteria heavily favor quantifiable achievements in infrastructure, economic output, and administrative order, which he meticulously details for Korea under Japanese rule. He attributes this success to the "wise and sympathetic guidance of Governor-General Saito" and the "unstinting employment of his unusual energy and of his still more unusual administrative talents".
However, it's crucial to remember that Ireland's "standard" is inherently flawed from a post-colonial perspective because it deliberately ignores the loss of self-determination, cultural suppression, and the coercive aspects of colonial rule, all of which are central to a holistic assessment of imperial "success."
2. Hypothetical: Korea's Independent Development Without Colonization
This is a counterfactual question, and while impossible to answer definitively, historical context allows for informed speculation.
Arguments for Less Positive Independent Development (in the short to medium term):
Internal Instability and Weak Governance: Prior to Japanese annexation, the Joseon Dynasty was indeed plagued by internal political strife, corruption, and administrative inefficiency. Ireland consistently emphasizes this "deplorable condition" and "stupidity and corruption" under native control. Without external intervention, it's possible these issues would have continued to hinder modernization efforts, similar to the struggles faced by other non-colonized, but internally weak, nations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
External Pressures and "Scramble for Asia": Even if uncolonized by Japan, Korea would have remained a geopolitical hotbed. Russia, China, and Western powers all had strategic interests in the peninsula. Without a strong, unified government, Korea might have become a
"semi-colony" or a "sphere of influence" for multiple powers, leading to ongoing instability, loss of de facto sovereignty, and economic exploitation without the direct administrative benefits (however self-serving) that Japan brought. This was a common fate for weak states in the age of imperialism.
Lack of Capital and Technical Expertise: Modernization required significant capital investment and technical know-how. While Korea might have sought loans and expertise from various nations, its internal instability could have made it a less attractive or higher-risk investment destination compared to a colonially "stabilized" territory. Ireland highlights Japan's substantial financial contributions and the role of Japanese experts in agricultural and industrial development.
Arguments for Potentially Better Independent Development (in the long term, especially for the masses):
Preservation of National Identity and Agency: The most profound loss under Japanese colonization was Korea's sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness. An independent path, however challenging, would have allowed Koreans to shape their own destiny, maintain their language, traditions, and national pride. This would have fostered organic social and political development, even if slower initially. The long-term psychological and social costs of colonization were immense, leading to persistent trauma and identity struggles that independent development, however difficult, would have avoided.
More Equitable Distribution of Benefits: While Japanese rule brought economic growth, much of the benefit flowed to Japan itself or to Japanese settlers and corporations. Korean labor was often exploited, and land policies dispossessed many Korean farmers. An independent Korea, even if less economically "efficient" by imperial standards, might have prioritized domestic welfare and a more equitable distribution of resources, ultimately benefiting the Korean masses more directly.
Development Tailored to Korean Needs: Colonial policies often prioritized the needs of the colonizer. An independent Korea would have been free to pursue educational, industrial, and social policies genuinely aligned with its own unique cultural context and societal goals, rather than having a foreign system imposed. For example, while Ireland praises Japanese education in Korea, Korean nationalists criticized it for "destroying Korean nationality" and promoting Japanization.
Potential for Resilient Self-Correction: While internal issues were severe, independent nations, even those with early struggles, can eventually develop mechanisms for self-correction and reform. The Korean people's inherent intelligence and capacity for progress, acknowledged even by Ireland, could have eventually found a path to more stable and beneficial governance on their own terms.
Conclusion:
It's highly probable that Korea would have faced significant challenges and external pressures without being colonized by Japan. It might have endured a period of continued internal instability or fallen under the less direct but still exploitative influence of other powers.
However, in terms of living standards and schooling for the masses, an independent development, while likely slower and more arduous in the immediate decades, would almost certainly have been more beneficial in the long run. This is because it would have allowed for:
Self-directed development: Policies would have been designed for Korean benefit, not colonial extraction.
Cultural preservation: Schooling would have fostered Korean identity, not suppressed it.
Agency and dignity: Even in hardship, the masses would have retained their national dignity and the power to demand change from their own leaders, rather than being subjects of an alien power.
The "efficiency" and "progress" touted by Ireland often came at the cost of Korean agency and identity, leading to deeply negative long-term consequences that cannot be measured solely in economic statistics or administrative reforms.
Sources
===
What would have been the chance of "full" integration of Koreans into the citizenship of the Japanese empire? At least in the manner of the people of Okinawa?
The chance of "full" integration of Koreans into the citizenship of the Japanese Empire, akin to the people of Okinawa, was theoretically pursued but faced significant practical and ideological barriers that made it unlikely to be truly "full" or equitable in the long term.
Japanese Ideology of Integration (Assimilation):
The Japanese "civilizing mission" in Korea, as highlighted in "The New Korea," clearly aimed for assimilation. The stated policy was to treat "Japanese and Korean peoples on an equal footing" , to remove "all causes for territorial and national discriminations" , and to promote "mutual welfare and happiness of the two peoples". Governor-General Saito's proclamation even stated a determination to "put forth greater efforts to act in a fairer and juster way" and give "Full consideration... to the appointment and treatment of Koreans so as to secure the right men for the right places". The Imperial Rescript on Reorganization in 1919 also aimed to "extend to the native population of that territory as Our beloved subjects a fair and impartial treatment in all respects, to the end that they may without distinction of persons lead their lives in peace and contentment". These pronouncements suggest an ideological commitment to integration, at least on paper.
Barriers to Full Integration (Unlike Okinawa):
Racial and Cultural Hierarchy: Despite the rhetoric of equality, a deeply ingrained racial and cultural hierarchy existed within the Japanese Empire. While Okinawans (Ryukyuans) were considered distinct, they were generally viewed as part of the broader Japanese ethnic group, albeit a "less developed" one, and their assimilation into Japanese identity had a longer history, preceding formal annexation by centuries. Koreans, in contrast, were seen as a separate and often inferior race, despite shared historical and cultural influences. This fundamental perception difference was difficult to overcome.
Scale of Population and Land: Korea's population was vast (over 17 million Koreans in 1923 compared to nearly 400,000 Japanese in Korea ), and its land area was significant. Assimilating such a large, distinct population while simultaneously settling a substantial number of Japanese immigrants (as the Oriental Development Company aimed to do ) created a different dynamic than the smaller-scale integration of Okinawa.
Active Resistance and Nationalism: Korean nationalism was a potent force, as evidenced by the 1919 Independence Movement. This strong and persistent desire for self-determination directly conflicted with Japanese assimilation policies. Even Ireland acknowledges that "the minds of many are fixed on complete national independence as the only goal". This sustained resistance meant that true integration, based on mutual acceptance rather than imposition, was an uphill battle for Japan. Okinawa, having been under Satsuma domain influence for centuries before Meiji annexation, did not experience the same type or scale of organized national resistance to Japanese rule.
Economic Exploitation: While Ireland portrays economic development as beneficial, the underlying reality was often exploitative, with Korea serving Japan's industrial and raw material needs. This economic subordination fueled resentment and created a material basis for inequality that assimilation rhetoric could not overcome. The economic benefits, while present, often flowed disproportionately to Japanese settlers and companies.
Imposed Measures vs. Organic Development: Japanese integration efforts, such as forced name changes, language suppression, and mandatory Shinto shrine attendance, were often coercive. This top-down imposition differed from the more gradual, albeit still often forced, historical processes of integration in Okinawa, where linguistic and cultural similarities were more pronounced to begin with.
Conclusion:
While Japan ideologically committed to the "full" integration of Koreans into the empire, the practicalities of a deeply rooted racial hierarchy, the sheer scale of the Korean population, fierce Korean nationalist resistance, and the underlying economic exploitation created insurmountable barriers. It is highly unlikely that Koreans would have achieved the same level of integration as Okinawans. The Japanese approach was more akin to a forced Japanization rather than a true mutual integration into a shared imperial citizenship with equitable rights and opportunities for all, regardless of their Korean origin. The "fair and impartial treatment" promised in rescripts was consistently undermined by the realities of colonial power dynamics and the ultimate goal of subsuming Korean identity into Japanese.
Sources
===
The "forced Japanization" also happened within Japan: many old "hans" losing identity and being transformed into a prefecture of a country lead by the centralized governement. It could be argued that the Empire building and colonisation first occured within Japan? There may be a hierarchy of social classes within Japan, not only ethnic, but also gender. There would be social movement within Japan to improve the rights of these people. This idea may be extended to Taiwan and Korea? Somewhat like different republics in the old Soviet Union? May be the Emperor system has to lose power first, as it happended by the defeat in the War. Just thinking aloud about a thought experiment I always had.
===
You're touching upon a very insightful and historically recognized concept in Japanese history and imperialism. The idea that "Empire building and colonization first occurred within Japan" is indeed a compelling argument made by many historians, particularly concerning the Meiji Restoration and its aftermath.
Here's a breakdown of your "thinking aloud" points:
"Empire building and colonization first occurred within Japan"
This argument often centers on the internal unification and centralization policies of the Meiji government (post-1868). Prior to the Meiji Restoration, Japan was a feudal society composed of numerous semi-autonomous domains (han) ruled by daimyo. The process of dismantling these han and establishing a centralized prefectural system (廃藩置県, haihan-chiken in 1871) involved:
Abolition of traditional identities: Local loyalties to han were suppressed in favor of a national Japanese identity. This process often involved coercion and the dismantling of existing power structures.
Centralized control over resources: The government took direct control of land, taxation, and military forces, which had previously been under han control.
Imposition of a standardized national culture: Education, language, and social norms were standardized across the country, often suppressing regional dialects and customs in the name of national unity.
Creation of a national military: Conscription was introduced, creating a centralized military force loyal to the Emperor, rather than local lords.
Furthermore, the integration of historically distinct regions like Hokkaido and Okinawa (Ryukyu Kingdom) into the Japanese state is often seen as internal colonization.
Hokkaido: The Ainu people, the indigenous inhabitants of Hokkaido, were subjected to policies that suppressed their culture, language, and traditional way of life, and their land was colonized by Japanese settlers.
Okinawa: The Ryukyu Kingdom, a formally independent tributary state, was forcibly annexed in 1879. While Okinawans were designated as Japanese subjects, they faced discrimination, economic exploitation, and pressure to assimilate their language and customs. Your comparison of potential Korean integration to Okinawa is very relevant here, as Okinawa serves as a key example of this "internal" colonial process.
So, yes, it can be strongly argued that the centralized, modern Japanese state consolidated its power and forged its national identity through processes that share many characteristics with external colonization, including the imposition of central authority, economic restructuring for national (rather than local) benefit, and cultural assimilation.
Hierarchy of Social Classes and Gender within Japan & Extension to Taiwan and Korea
You are also correct that a strict hierarchy of social classes and gender existed within Japan itself:
Social Classes: The Meiji government formally abolished the samurai class and created a more fluid social structure, but new hierarchies based on wealth, education, and bureaucratic power quickly emerged. The Emperor was at the apex of a rigid social and political pyramid.
Gender: Traditional patriarchal norms were reinforced, and women had limited legal, political, and economic rights. Their primary role was defined within the domestic sphere.
The idea of extending social movements to improve the rights of marginalized groups within Japan to its colonies like Taiwan and Korea is very pertinent:
Colonial Contradictions: Imperial powers often faced a contradiction: promoting "modernity" and "rights" at home while denying them to colonized peoples. Calls for universal suffrage, women's rights, or labor rights within Japan itself could, logically, be extended to Koreans and Taiwanese.
Limited Rights in Colonies: While Japan introduced some "modern" systems in its colonies, such as legal codes and administrative structures, these were often implemented with significant racial discrimination. Koreans and Taiwanese were rarely, if ever, granted the same political or social rights as Japanese citizens in the metropole. They faced restrictions on assembly, speech, and political participation. Economic opportunities were often limited to lower-tier roles or resource extraction beneficial to Japan.
"Different Republics" Analogy: Your analogy to the Soviet Union's republics is interesting. While Japan's empire was not a federal system, the idea of nominally "integrated" but functionally subordinate territories with distinct local identities is a relevant comparison. The Japanese government did, at times, adapt its administrative approach to local conditions (e.g., initial military rule in Korea shifting to a more "cultural policy" under Saito, as mentioned in Ireland's book ), but the fundamental power imbalance and colonial hierarchy remained. The ultimate goal for Korea was full integration into the Japanese "homeland," rather than a distinct, albeit subordinate, "republic."
The Emperor System and Defeat in War
Your point about the Emperor system losing power through defeat in war is critical. The pre-war Japanese state was characterized by:
Emperor-centric ideology: The Emperor was considered a divine figure, the embodiment of the nation, and the source of all authority. This ideology was a cornerstone of both domestic control and imperial expansion.
Militarism: The military held immense power, often directly accountable only to the Emperor, bypassing civilian government. This fueled aggressive expansionism.
The defeat in World War II fundamentally altered this.
Loss of Divine Status: The Emperor renounced his divinity.
Post-war Constitution: The new constitution established parliamentary democracy, popular sovereignty, and enshrined a wide range of human rights.
Demilitarization: The military was dismantled, and Japan adopted a pacifist constitution.
This post-war transformation allowed for significant improvements in rights and standards of living within Japan. It also led to the decolonization of Korea and Taiwan. In a hypothetical scenario, it is indeed plausible that without external pressure like military defeat, the deeply entrenched imperial system, with its inherent hierarchies and assimilationist tendencies, would have continued to limit the full realization of rights for all its subjects, including those in Korea and Taiwan. The colonial administration, as described by Ireland, was part of a larger imperial project that derived its legitimacy and power from this centralized, militaristic, and Emperor-centric state.
Sources
No comments:
Post a Comment