Janus面临的殖民政策:解读日本在韩国的行政辞令与实践中的矛盾

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Mark E. Caprio
{"title":"Janus面临的殖民政策:解读日本在韩国的行政辞令与实践中的矛盾","authors":"Mark E. Caprio","doi":"10.21866/ESJEAS.2017.17.2.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Studies on Japan's assimilation policies in Korea (1910–1945) frequently criticize the contradiction between the rhetoric of inclusiveness Japan used to describe its administration and the policy of discrimination it advanced in the colony. This paper argues this contradiction is characteristic of other administrations that the colonizers employed in territories contiguous with the colonial homeland, including the French in Algeria and the Germans in Alsace and Lorraine. It contrasts this peripheral expansion with the intensive assimilation efforts found in internal nation-building expansion, and the less intrusive external expansion where colonizers built social walls to separate colonizer from colonized. In Korea, evidence of this contradiction between rhetoric and practice appeared in various social, economic, and political areas. This paper emphasizes the contradiction found in the education system established by the government general, which offered Koreans elementary schooling of a lesser quality than that provided Japanese both in Japan and in Korea. Over the decades of colonial rule in Korea the Japanese proposed a number of reforms that promised to close the gap between colonizer and colonized education, and scheduled others that due to Japan's defeat in the Asian Pacific wars never materialized. Thus it remains an open question as to whether Japan's assimilation policies would have succeeded in closing the rhetoric-practice gap had the colonizers had more time. Japanese relations with other minority peoples, including Okinawans and Ainu, suggest that, while one factor, time alone might not have narrowed this gap to sufficiently assimilate Koreans, both those residing on the peninsula and in the colonial homeland.","PeriodicalId":41529,"journal":{"name":"Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Janus-Faced Colonial Policy: Making Sense of the Contradictions in Japanese Administrative Rhetoric and Practice in Korea\",\"authors\":\"Mark E. Caprio\",\"doi\":\"10.21866/ESJEAS.2017.17.2.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:Studies on Japan's assimilation policies in Korea (1910–1945) frequently criticize the contradiction between the rhetoric of inclusiveness Japan used to describe its administration and the policy of discrimination it advanced in the colony. This paper argues this contradiction is characteristic of other administrations that the colonizers employed in territories contiguous with the colonial homeland, including the French in Algeria and the Germans in Alsace and Lorraine. It contrasts this peripheral expansion with the intensive assimilation efforts found in internal nation-building expansion, and the less intrusive external expansion where colonizers built social walls to separate colonizer from colonized. In Korea, evidence of this contradiction between rhetoric and practice appeared in various social, economic, and political areas. This paper emphasizes the contradiction found in the education system established by the government general, which offered Koreans elementary schooling of a lesser quality than that provided Japanese both in Japan and in Korea. Over the decades of colonial rule in Korea the Japanese proposed a number of reforms that promised to close the gap between colonizer and colonized education, and scheduled others that due to Japan's defeat in the Asian Pacific wars never materialized. Thus it remains an open question as to whether Japan's assimilation policies would have succeeded in closing the rhetoric-practice gap had the colonizers had more time. Japanese relations with other minority peoples, including Okinawans and Ainu, suggest that, while one factor, time alone might not have narrowed this gap to sufficiently assimilate Koreans, both those residing on the peninsula and in the colonial homeland.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21866/ESJEAS.2017.17.2.001\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21866/ESJEAS.2017.17.2.001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:日本在朝鲜的同化政策研究(1910-1945)经常批评日本用来描述其政府的包容性言论与在殖民地推行的歧视政策之间的矛盾。本文认为,这种矛盾是殖民者在与殖民地相连的领土上工作的其他政府的特点,包括阿尔及利亚的法国人和阿尔萨斯和洛林的德国人。它将这种外围扩张与内部国家建设扩张中的密集同化努力以及殖民者建造社会墙以将殖民者与被殖民者分隔开来的侵入性较小的外部扩张进行了对比。在韩国,各种社会、经济和政治领域都出现了这种修辞与实践之间矛盾的证据。本文强调了政府建立的教育体系中存在的矛盾,该体系在日本和韩国为韩国人提供的小学教育质量都低于日本人。在朝鲜几十年的殖民统治中,日本人提出了一系列改革,承诺缩小殖民者和被殖民者之间的教育差距,并计划了其他由于日本在亚太战争中失败而从未实现的改革。因此,如果殖民者有更多的时间,日本的同化政策是否会成功地缩小言论和实践的差距,这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。日本与包括冲绳人和阿伊努人在内的其他少数民族的关系表明,尽管有一个因素,但仅凭时间可能无法缩小这一差距,从而充分同化居住在半岛和殖民地的韩国人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Janus-Faced Colonial Policy: Making Sense of the Contradictions in Japanese Administrative Rhetoric and Practice in Korea
ABSTRACT:Studies on Japan's assimilation policies in Korea (1910–1945) frequently criticize the contradiction between the rhetoric of inclusiveness Japan used to describe its administration and the policy of discrimination it advanced in the colony. This paper argues this contradiction is characteristic of other administrations that the colonizers employed in territories contiguous with the colonial homeland, including the French in Algeria and the Germans in Alsace and Lorraine. It contrasts this peripheral expansion with the intensive assimilation efforts found in internal nation-building expansion, and the less intrusive external expansion where colonizers built social walls to separate colonizer from colonized. In Korea, evidence of this contradiction between rhetoric and practice appeared in various social, economic, and political areas. This paper emphasizes the contradiction found in the education system established by the government general, which offered Koreans elementary schooling of a lesser quality than that provided Japanese both in Japan and in Korea. Over the decades of colonial rule in Korea the Japanese proposed a number of reforms that promised to close the gap between colonizer and colonized education, and scheduled others that due to Japan's defeat in the Asian Pacific wars never materialized. Thus it remains an open question as to whether Japan's assimilation policies would have succeeded in closing the rhetoric-practice gap had the colonizers had more time. Japanese relations with other minority peoples, including Okinawans and Ainu, suggest that, while one factor, time alone might not have narrowed this gap to sufficiently assimilate Koreans, both those residing on the peninsula and in the colonial homeland.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信