뉴스레터

The United States supply of Korean scholars has been fortified by a series of mid- to late-twentieth century waves: first the military, then the Peace Corps, followed by the Mormon Church, English instructors, and now Koreans and Korean-American products of the United States education system. Throughout this time Japanese-centered scholars have revised their academic interests to include topics on the other side of the East Sea to enter Korean studies as well. My background mixes the English instructor/Japanese-centered categories that I entered from 1980. From 1991 I left this world to redirect my life into Asian studies with a particular focus on modern Korean history.

An individual's research in many ways reflects their background and experiences. My first project involving the colonial assimilation policy in Korea I now see as an attempt to understand through the Korean historical example how contemporary Japanese use outsiders to develop their personal identity. The assimilation policy that Japanese introduced to the peninsula alienated them from the Koreans in two ways: to the anti-Japanese Korean the assimilation rhetoric held absolutely no meaning: they believed Japanese culture held little, if any, attraction. To the "pro-Japanese" Korean, the rhetoric was insignificant unless the Japanese were prepared to follow through with their promises to assimilate, which to these Koreans meant considering them as equals. This the Japanese showed few signs demonstrating a willingness to do so.

My second project, the one that I pursued during my one-month tenure at the Northeast Asia History Foundation, is very much a sequel to this first project as it seeks to understand the effect that assimilation had on Korea's postcolonial history. What legacy (janjae) did the divisions that developed over the colonial period between pro- and anti-Japanese leave after Korea's liberation? What caused the unnatural dregs of colonialism to linger on the Korean peninsula? How did these dregs affect post-liberation Korean social formation? And, to what extent did United States Military Government occupation policy help strengthen the colonial post-liberation legacy?

I don't pretend to have all of the answers to these questions just yet, but the one-month residence at the Foundation has introduced me to a number of angles that I hope to pursue over the coming months. For this I am grateful for discussions with Kim Minkyu, Seo Chongchin, Kenneth Robinson, and other members of the Foundation during my stay. Perhaps the most important realization is the fact that colonial dregs do not quickly disappear. These remnants of Japan's colonial administration continue to be debated to this day in seminars, in the media, and on the streets. Here both Koreans and Japanese discuss ways in which reconciliation might be realized, often in the midst of dissention on both shores regarding Korean-Japanese relations. I hope that my research can in some way make even a small contribution toward the positive result of mutual understanding.