Shimonoseki educator apologizes for colonial rule remark

Tuesday 08th July, 03:22 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 48 Total Comments Show All

MASSWIPE at 12:46 PM JST - 11th July

LFRAgain, nice comments, but I'm afraid you're arguing with brick walls. Seiharinokaze and Nigelboy have made it clear over the years that they march firmly in lock-step with blinkered local education officials like Mr. Shimakura. They will give you links to websites that simply confirm what they already believe--that Japan's colonial rule over Korea wasn't "colonial" but in fact quite beneficial. Mr. Shimakura, of course, has already been forced to publicly apologize for implying something similar, so we can all see how little validity such arguments have.

On paper, the US had many good reasons to permanently occupy Japan after 1945, but the US didn't do that, and for good reason. Indefinitely depriving other people of their sovereignty in pursuit of your own self-interested goals, which is what Japan did vis-a-vis Korea from 1910-45, is something that can never be justified. It doesn't matter how much "buoyancy of civilization" you feel you bring. A large number of Japanese and their diehard foreign defenders can't seem to recognize this simple idea.
LFRAgain at 12:53 PM JST - 11th July

Masswipe,

I know. But you can't blame a guy for trying. Maybe one day, they'll see a glimmer of light. I'm not always right either, and I'll be the first to admit that. But it's hard for me to sit back and see something wrong go unchallenged. As long as they keep posting their nonsense, I'll keep refuting it. Long and boring as my posts may be, my typing skills are top notch now! There's a silver lining after all!
nigelboy at 01:11 PM JST - 11th July

The treaty concluded with Japan had one, the seal, but not the other, the signature. The sitting monarch at the time, Emperor Yung-hui, not only did not sign the treaty, thus giving it legal validity based on Korean law, but refused to due to the castrating quality of the treaty.

Article 9 大韓国国制 1899

大韓国大皇帝におかれては、各有約国に使臣を派送駐紮させ、宣戦講和及び諸般の約条を締結する、公法に謂うところの自遣使臣である。

In regards to Korean Empire, the appointed diplomat will be dispatched to other foreign countries and have the power to declare war and to conclude peace as well as other various treaties as public law states.

Most legal interpretations, then and now, of agreements concluded in this kind of atmosphere would agree that such a treaty was made under duress. Treaties made under duress have no legal standing in most societies, Eastern or Western alike.

I disagree. "A Reconsideration of the Japanese Annexation of Korea from the Historical and International Law Perspectives. that I linked states the following.

"But according to James Crawford, of the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, judgments must be reached according to the practices in effect at the time. There seemed, in the end, to be little ground for agreement regarding the issue of the legality of the annexation."

And no. I believe Seiharinokaze has his own views about the annexation which is different from mine.
nigelboy at 01:25 PM JST - 11th July

So whether Korea was "colonized" or "annexed" by Japan in 1910 is not really relevant. Deprivation of Korea's sovereignty was achieved (protectorate status had already been achieved in 1905). And the reason this did not occur earlier in 1895 was because of the Triple Intervention (more directly related to peninsular China but also connected to Korea), a devastating shock that forced Japan to lick its wounds and regroup for war against Russia.

Then the Triple Intervention would of stated that Korea should remain independent. Don't reach Masswipe. There was no desire to acquire Korea by Japan immediately after the Shimonoseki Treaty. No foreign diplomatic records/archive shows of these imagined intent whatsoever.
nigelboy at 01:59 PM JST - 11th July

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=1918648

"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. His remarks are sinking deep into our minds, and we again confirm that 91 years ago we surrendered our country to the Japanese colonial government due to our hopeless ineptitude. On Aug. 29, 1910, the imperial government of Japan promulgated that it had taken over the entire government and administration of Korea, and Wednesday was the anniversary of the national humiliation. In studying this history, 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.....

General power of attorney to Lee Wan-Yong signed and sealed by Sunjong.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:GeneralpowerofattorneytoLeeWan-Yongsignedandsealedby_Sunjong.jpg
nigelboy at 03:05 PM JST - 11th July

Yes, Japan brought all those things to the Korean Peninsula

LFR

That's the problem. Neither the Chosen schools here in Japan nor schools in Korea teaches this. And most importantly, they failed to grasp that fact at that time, Korean peninsula was a failed state that could not govern herself. And even today, such scholars James Crawfard used the term "uncivilized" when talking about Korea at that time. Quite offensive label coming from a scholar of today but there was no other way of describing the conditions of Korea at that time.

But at what price? Is the price of freedom of self-determination worth railroads and sewage systems? Some would say yes. However, that the Korean people didn’t and don't feel it was an acceptable price to pay then or now is the only opinion that should matter in this argument.

Let me guess this straight. An opinion of a school IN JAPAN that openly displays/honors a regime headed by Kim Jong Il who has kidnapped Japanese citizens and had fired missiles at the direction of Japan "is the only opinion that should matter in this argument"?
Seiharinokaze at 04:31 PM JST - 11th July

LFRAgain

But since you seem to think that the people don’t matter in this case, then you must obviously mean that the only opinions that did matter with regard to treaty negotiation were those of the ruling governments.

No, I simply mean how could you have sought the consent of the people at the time, if you say it's something that mattered.

Moderator: All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not refer to the story will be removed.
Seiharinokaze at 05:18 PM JST - 11th July

LFRAgain

My post was deleted as off topic. So I cannot answer your question here about the validity of annexation treaty (about signature of the emperor), please refer to the graphic section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan-KoreaAnnexationTreaty

Answer me this: Why not simply start out from the onset with more civil, less repressive administrative law?

I agree that we should apologize for repressive administration in the earlier days of the rule. But it seems Koreans' historical view on the rule was also too much biased to the repressive side of the earlier days and at the end period of the WW2. They might look at more general or should I say "different" perspectives such as I mentioned before, including their own actions and feelings.
MASSWIPE at 05:35 PM JST - 11th July

Nigelboy, here you again, whining online when you could be doing something more useful. If you're so concerned about the existence of North Korean schools in Japan, why don't you use your wonderful Japanese language skills and complain about it to the relevant official in the Japanese government? Japan is a sovereign, independent country; it has no one to blame but itself for the fact that a virtual North Korean "state within the state" exists within Japan's borders. It's hard to think of any state (even a "failed state") that would allow such an arrangement to persist within its own borders. But Japan, to the astonishment of outsiders, has allowed the current situation with North Korean schools to persist for more than 50 years.

It would be nice if, for once, you could acknowledge that the Japanese are at least partially responsible for solving their own problems.
LFRAgain at 09:26 PM JST - 11th July

Nigelboy,

Yes, I agree. The Korean schools do give a distorted picture of Japan-Korean relations. But that’s distortion isn’t at play here. At face values, the Koreans’ claim is correct: Japan DID colonize the Korean Peninsula. And Shimakura’s response was nothing short of colossally stupid. Why not, “Issues regarding the annexation were addressed in 1965”? Or how about, “Please refer that claim to the national government.” Of all the things he could have said, "It's not a historical fact" was a tremendous blunder.

An opinion of a school IN JAPAN that openly displays/honors a regime headed by Kim Jong Il who has kidnapped Japanese citizens and had fired missiles at the direction of Japan "is the only opinion that should matter in this argument"?

And here we return to square one. What’s Kim got to do with the price of bean curd at Aeon? That these folks worship the little troll in Pyongyang has nothing whatsoever to do with them asking for increased subsidies based on the reasoning that Japan owes them for its colonial rule of Korea which lead to the forced migration of Korean families to Japan. Yes, their claim is a bit of a stretch, but keep in mind that they’re addressing something that happened long before the DPRK was even a twinkle in Daddy Kim’s eye. The forced migrations to Japan that the Koreans spoke of actually occurred, as they claimed, and they did occur, unless of course, you disagree with that point as well), long before North Korea started kidnapping Japanese citizens. In this and no other context, the comment made by Shimakura was a poor one, having nothing to do with the troll and everything to do with historical revisionism.

Certainly, his response may have been tempered by the same frustrations you seem to have with these Korean schools operating in Japan, but hey, if the Japanese government and public don’t see fit to send them packing, then what’s your beef? Furthermore, why are you so hell-bent on linking the troll and his minions' poor taste in leaders with the actual heart of the story, namely Shimakura's highly selective interpretation of pre-Kim history?
nigelboy at 01:40 PM JST - 13th July

The forced migrations to Japan that the Koreans spoke of actually occurred, as they claimed, and they did occur, unless of course, you disagree with that point as well

I do.

Read Seiharinokaze's response to this thread.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japans-abduction-strategy-baffles-counterparts-at-6-party-n-koreran-talks#showallcomments

Only 245 were under conscription "国民徴用令”which is OBVIOUS since this ordinance was issued in 1944 while the inland Japanese people were subject to the ordinance nearly five years before that.

Even your "Korean Law" thing when proved wrong, you go into another direction.

If Shimakura is highly selective, what is yours?

And FYI, many Japanese are fed up with these antics. Do you notice that certain cities and wards have sued these NK association/schools for illegally occuping the land?

Shimakura apologized because these extortionists were protesting every day in front of the city hall. But they will still not get an extra yen from the City.
Seiharinokaze at 02:04 PM JST - 13th July

LFRAgain

Sorry, the link I gave doesn't work. It should be as under. You will find his signature there. It being the reason for illegality of the treaty seems rather moot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan-KoreaAnnexationTreaty

nigelboy

Yes we are rather fed up with biased discourse. But I believe not all of Korean residents. A new Korean International School in Osaka has a history teacher who said "It is almost impossible to find a completely neutral position. In addition, students have different educational backgrounds until they come here. So their historical knowledge also varies." With this in mind, she started her class by discussing a historical incident and showing the students how different nations viewed the same incident. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/language/20080710TDY14001.htm
LFRAgain at 11:21 AM JST - 16th July

Seiharinokaze,

I still couldn't open the link you provided, but I think found what you were talking about on my own. On the surface, that signature may suggest legality, having conferred power of attorney to the then Prime Minister Lee, and in fact, that was the intent of the Japanese government in having such laws drawn up in the late 1890s and early 1900s, in order to lend legitimacy to their efforts to annex the peninsula. Looking at only one colorful piece of the puzzle certainly makes for a compelling argument at first glance, but place the piece in the context of the entire picture, and it takes on a different meaning altogether.
LFRAgain at 01:47 PM JST - 16th July

Nigelboy,

I read Seiharinokaze's response, and he offers a compelling argument regarding sheer numbers, but it doesn’t change the fact that forced migrations happened. Granted, the Korean side offers grossly over-inflated numbers in their claims, but the Japanese response isn’t much better, with many suggesting that there were no conscriptions or forced migrations whatsoever, which you and I both know isn’t true.

Even your "Korean Law" thing when proved wrong, you go into another direction.

For one, my direction hasn’t changed. You just still haven’t chosen to address it: What does Shimakura’s position regarding the colonization/annexation of Korea 100 years ago have to do with Kim Jong Il today? Are you saying that if the claim of annexation were made by South Koreans living in Japan, you would then be more receptive to their message?

And forgive me if I don’t trip over myself in sudden epiphany at your, ahem, “proof.” A Japanese interpretation of Korean law established in 1899, at the height of Japanese political manipulation of Korean politics? Yeah. Again, forgive me if I choose to take your evidence with a particularly large grain of salt.

Even the most prolific Japanese scholar on the subject today, Unno Fukuju, while making his case for the legality of the annexation, defers to the opinion of international law scholars of the time, an opinion that seems to support the Korean position that the annexation was indeed illegal, a stance taken in 1906 by French international law scholar Francis Rey.

The events leading up to the ultimate 1910 Treaty, starting with the gunboat diplomacy of Inoue Yoshika in 1875, granting extraterritoriality to Japanese in Korea, continuing with the assassination/execution of Korean empress Myeongseong 1895, and culminating in the unequal 1907 Treaty, stripping Korea of its sovereignty, bear all the hallmarks of coercion, corruption, and political manipulation of a sovereign state by a foreign government. Even in the late 19th century, such conduct resulting in any sort of agreement would have been considered illegitimate, if not illegal, a very narrow distinction that Unno attempts, unsuccessfully, in the opinion of many scholars, to exploit for the purposes of his argument. See my comment to Seiharinokaze regarding puzzle pieces and complete pictures.

Incidentally, considering this evidence provided by you, one who goes to great lengths to berate and belittle posters with whom you disagree based exclusively on their assumed lack of Japanese language skills – Is the irony not lost on you that you choose to reference a Japanese source rather than a Korean one? Your linguistic shortcomings are showing.

To the point, were I to choose this, one of your apparent preferred methods for discounting disagreeable opinions, I would simply ignore your evidence outright, based on a presumption of your insufficient Korean language ability, and subsequently your inability to know the “truth,” based on scholarship in the original language. I would further discount the fact that scholars with far greater ability than you or I have done the linguistic legwork to bring original documentation to interested parties, like you or I, who, while holding a keen interest in the subject matter, may or may not have had the time or inclination to master, say, Japanese or Korean.

If I were to discount your arguments based on linguistic ability alone, then that would make me, well, foolish. Let me ask you. Are you fluent in Korean? If not, does this make your point regarding Korean law any less worthy of consideration? Something for you to ponder the next time you decide to jump on another poster for not meeting your entirely pretentious and arrogant Japanese linguistic litmus tests.

And FYI, many Japanese are fed up with these antics. Do you notice that certain cities and wards have sued these NK association/schools for illegally occuping the land?

FYI, many Japanese are also fed up with nationalists dictating the direction of public discourse concerning the war, using intimidation and violence to silence dissenting opinion. When was the last time you saw anti-Nationalists driving around in large black vans, blaring "Give Peace A Chance” in front of the homes and offices of prominent Japanese Nationalist politicians? In the meantime, have you noticed some people are suing McDonald’s because they say their food makes them fat? The mere existence of a lawsuit doesn't automatically confer legitimacy to it, or to your anti-Chongryon argument - which, again, has what, precisely to do with Shimakura's comments?

Shimakura apologized because these extortionists were protesting every day in front of the city hall. But they will still not get an extra yen from the City.

No, Shimakura apologized because his personal position stood in stark contrast to that of the national government regarding the issue, namely that the colonization of Korea DID happen. As to whether or not the Korean school will get additional monies, I agree, I don’t think they will either. But not because Shimakura is correct, but rather because finances are tight all over Japan for schools right now and the Korean schools shouldn’t be an exception to the current policy of tightening belts in the present volatile economic climate. Which is the position Shimakura should have stuck with in the first place, instead of this nationalistic drivel.
nigelboy at 04:33 AM JST - 18th July

I read Seiharinokaze's response, and he offers a compelling argument regarding sheer numbers, but it doesn’t change the fact that forced migrations happened. Granted, the Korean side offers grossly over-inflated numbers in their claims, but the Japanese response isn’t much better, with many suggesting that there were no conscriptions or forced migrations whatsoever, which you and I both know isn’t true.

Well. This is where you make your case, LFR. Was there a policy during 1910~1945 where Japan forcibily migrated Koreans to Japan. If so, cite the ordinance or law. And secondly, (this is important) how were they forced? I emphasize this because there are many who like to draw comparisons with the abudcted citizens of Japanese to that of Koreans who were residing in Japan as if they were on the same level.

And forgive me if I don’t trip over myself in sudden epiphany at your, ahem, “proof.” A Japanese interpretation of Korean law established in 1899, at the height of Japanese political manipulation of Korean politics? Yeah. Again, forgive me if I choose to take your evidence with a particularly large grain of salt

This is again, a time to make your case. First and foremost, are you saying that the Constitution of 1899 does not exist? Or are you saying that Article 9 of the said Constitution does not exist. Or are you saying that Article 9 is translated wrong? If so, please give me your translation of the Article. I'll take the original Hanjya texts as well.

Even the most prolific Japanese scholar on the subject today, Unno Fukuju, while making his case for the legality of the annexation, defers to the opinion of international law scholars of the time, an opinion that seems to support the Korean position that the annexation was indeed illegal, a stance taken in 1906 by French international law scholar Francis Rey.

And the problem with Unno is that he finds himself in a position that all international agreements/treaties are "forced" in some way. I find many of his arguments to be very hypocritical. And no, I do not use the word "prolific" when referring to Unno. I'm not that desperate to make an argument.

I agree, I don’t think they will either. But not because Shimakura is correct, but rather because finances are tight all over Japan for schools right now and the Korean schools shouldn’t be an exception to the current policy of tightening belts in the present volatile economic climate.

Shimakura's correct in that "foreign" schools are not entitled to such addtional funds for these are earmarked for schools which comply to the required curriculumn mandated by the government. And that's the position he should of stuck with. But I applaud him for his two cents.