The word 'annexation of Texas' does not mean ' plunder' or 'conquest. ' Entitled on 2019-03-13 The chapters that have sent out are re-disseminated with punctuation and other corrections.
The April 2019 issue of WiLL, the monthly magazine of the "history connoisseur," separate volume 202X, Countdown to the Annihilation of "Korea" (980 yen), which is currently on sale, is a must-read for all Japanese citizens.
It is a must-read for the many people who have subscribed to the Asahi Shimbun and watched the NHK after the war.
Because it is full of real history that, for some reason, was never told or reported to the many people who subscribed to the Asahi Shimbun and watched the NHK.
The following article is an important legacy left to us by Shoichi Watanabe, a giant star from Yamagata Prefecture, who lived his life as a treasure of Japan.
Korea was not a 'colony.'
The '36 years of colonial rule under Japanese imperialism' is just an assertion by the Korean side. There are voices on the Japanese side that agree with it. But what about if we look at it from the perspective of world history? There is a big difference between "confederation" and "colonialism."
Pizarro's Invasion and 'Colony'
Japan and Korea merged in 1910.
Some people view this as the "colonization" of South Korea by Japan; somewhat, it has become the prevailing trend.
Of course, South Korea and North Korea argue that, out of political interest.
So first, let's clearly recognize that the so-called "Japan-Korea annexation" was a confederation of two empires, not the colonization of one by one of the other.
We must not forget that Korea became the "Korean Empire" thanks to Japan in the Sino-Japanese War.
That is the beginning of the story.
It was a confederation of empires.
For example, in English literature, the term "annexation" is used to describe Japan and Korea's union.
It is an entirely different image from colonization, which means "colonization."
It is also essential to know how the word was used at the time to look at history fairly and objectively.
We shouldn't condemn the past based on today's common sense.
Even though we know it in our minds, we tend to measure history by today's standards.
First of all, I would like to explain the difference between "annexation" and "colonization" as clearly as I can, based on British dictionaries.
First, let's consider the etymology of the word "colonization."
The "colo" in "colonization" means "to cultivate" or "to inhabit."
The past participle of the Latin verb "cultum" means "cultivated."
The English word "culture," meaning "cultivation" or "culture," also comes from there, meaning "refined."
The derivative of "cultum" (colonia) meant "farm" or "territory".
Initially, Roman citizens inhabited by the land especially discharged soldiers called "veterans" (veteran), who moved to newly conquered territories as the Roman Empire expanded.
They had Roman citizenship and also served in defense of the Empire as garrison soldiers.
It would be easier to describe them as a kind of "garrison soldier."
If you look at Britain, there were nine Roman colonies on the island of Britain.
Some of the better-known areas include London, Bath, Chester, and Lincoln.
All of these were Roman colonias at the time.
Now, the word "Colonia", which in Roman times meant "farm" or "estate," eventually came to mean "apoikia" in the Greek language.
The Greeks settled on the islands of Surakias and Italy and built independent and self-governing "colonies."
It was "Apoikia," which meant a place to live independently of the metropolis (mother polis), which in Latin came to be known as Colonia.
So when did the word "colony" come into use in modern English for "colony"?
The word "colony" was first used in English by a 16th century English translator named Richard Eden.
He first used the word "colony" in his translation of a book on the deeds of Francisco Pizarro, the example Spaniard. The latter destroyed the Inca Empire in Peru and destroyed civilization.
He published it in 1555.' The Decade of the New Worlde, or West India ('The New World' Or Decades in West India") in the book
The British sent criminals to the colonies.
So the modern word "colony" or "colony" entered the English language as an allusion to the atrocious invasion and plunder of Pizarro, who drove the indigenous people of Peru to extinction during the Age of Discovery.
The year 1555 was the year that Mori Motonari defeated Sue Harukata at the Battle of Itsukushima, laying the foundation for his control of the Chugoku region.
It was five years before Oda Nobunaga defeated Imagawa no Yoshimoto at the Battle of Okehazama.
The verb "to colonize" and Edmund Burke first used the noun "colonization" in 1770.
In his book 'The Thoughts on the Present Discontents,' he said that "Our Growth by colonization and by conquest in England...".
Six years later, in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, he used the phrase "The discovery and colonization of America."
It means to kick the Indians out of the country and take their land by force. In Japan, it corresponds to the Tanuma period.
The English poet and writer Robert Southie, who in his later years wrote "Admiral Nelson's Biography" and was recommended by the novelist Walter Scott as a poet laureate, dreamed of the now-forgotten "pantisocracy" in his younger days, which he called "pantisocracy" in Japanese.
A Spanish traveler named Don Manuel Albarace Espriera wrote In the setting "Letters from England" ("London Correspondence," 1807), the following He writes as follows. 'Colonize with criminals is part of the British system.'
In other words, he criticizes the British for sending criminals to the colonies.
He also says that the lives of the English people are in great danger, especially in terms of their industrial and commercial expansion.
From that time on, the English word "colonize" had an image of invasion and plunder, which all the good-hearted people in England used in the wrong way.
Japan-Korea confederation was 'annexation.'
By the 1830s, the term "colonizationism" or "colonizationist" = colonizer was also used in the United States.
It, for example, has a critical connotation.
The word "Colonia" was not initially a lousy word. Still, as white people conquered countries of color during the Age of Discovery, the term "colonize" was coined, and it came to have the image of "plunder" and "invasion."
That word "colonization" does not appear in British literature at all, as far as I know about the Japan-Korea confederation.
It is all described as "annexation."
The word "annexation" is used by the English philosopher Francis Bacon, who is said to have written before 1626 in his 'Union of England and Scotland,' with the nuance of equality: 'A compound annexation from the lands of two nations....'
In 1875, a legal scholar and historian named James Blythe wrote in "The Holy Roman Empire" that "France had been annexed to Peermont by the French.
The French crossed the Alps by annexing Piedmont.
Again, there is no connotation of "plunder" here.
The verb "annex" originally meant without subordination, and there was initially no connotation of either side being superior to the other.
A History of Britain, initially published in 1846, originally in Latin and published before that, says that Julius Caesar annexed Britain to the Roman Empire.
Again, there is a strong nuance of Rome's civilization on the island of Britain, not a sense of plunder.
There is no sense of plunder or conquest.
Furthermore, the term "annexationist" means an annexationist of Texas in the United States.
Neither does the term "annexation of Texas" (annexation) in the United States, which was realized in 1845, mean "plunder" or "conquest."
With this in mind, let's look at the 12th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1922.
The 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911, the year after Japan-Korea confederation, had no mention of Korea. The 12th edition, published 12 years later, contained the first mention of Japan-Korea confederation under the title 'Korea.'
The Britannica, first published in 1771 in Edinburgh, Great Britain, is a highly reliable encyclopedia that was read by intellectuals around the world. It was recognized worldwide for its impartiality of information, along with the London Times, when it was released only in England.
It was read by intellectuals all over the world.
It says: "On August 22, 1910, Korea became an integral part of the Japanese Empire.
The use of the term "integral part" indicates that the country is not considered a 'colony.'
'The name of the country reverts to Chosen, the name used about five hundred years ago. Since 1906, when Japan became a diplomatic power, orderly and systematic progress has been made by Japan. There was, and this (confederation) has further ensured its progress.'
However, it was also written that 'some people criticize the repression of Korean nationalism.'
And it goes on to say as follows. "The development of the police system and the promotion of internal rule in the remote countryside, which was overrun with thieves and robbers. Security also improved. The tranquility in Korea had not been clouded since the annexation of Korea, but in March 1919, Suddenly, there was an upheaval in the United States (Watabe's note 3.1 movements).
It was due to the influence of self-determination advocated by U.S. President Wilson. However, it was immediately put down. The Japanese had been cautiously pursuing reforms, and this prompted them to hasten their plans. Remarkably, civilians and military personnel could become the governor of Korea. The Viceroy, from a position of responsibility to the Emperor alone, was to be subject to the Prime Minister.
Park Chung-hee received benefits from Japan.
'Prime Minister Hara Takashi said that the discrimination between Japanese and Koreans on education, industry, and civil service system He declared that he was pursuing a policy of removing them, and calm was thus restored to the DPRK. After that, the disaffected people made some noise from time to time, but it was brilliantly suppressed'.
Koreans were not the only ones to riot during the Japanese occupation.
Even after independence, there were many uprisings, such as the Jeju Island Incident (1948) and the Gwangju Incident (1980), but they were much more common than in the Japanese era.
In fact, there have been more of them than in the Japanese era.
Be that as it may, the word "annexation" is used in all of these 1922 Britannica descriptions.
Four years later, the 13th edition of the Britannica, published in 1926, included an entry entitled 'Annexation of Korea.'
'The Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars were fought to prevent Korea from becoming a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan,' it wrote. It was very sympathetic to Japan: 'There was no better way to end the fickle and suicidal diplomacy of the Korean courtiers than for Japan to merge with them, which culminated in the assassination of Hirobumi Ito.'
It also goes on and on about how the economy of the Korean peninsula had developed.
And it stabilized after the union with Japan.
The Japanese government in Tokyo considered that it was Japan's responsibility to govern the Chosun, and the Chosun royal family received high honor and ample economic support.
The Japanese treated them in the same manner as the Japanese royal family, and Crown Prince Yi Un was married to Queen Masako of Nashimoto-no-Miya.
It is inconceivable that a royal family from a conquered "colony" would have married into the home country's royal family.
There is no example of a Korean king who took the daughter of a Chinese royal family as his wife.
That is to say, three kinds of the upper class, the royal family, the Yi royal family, and the nobility were created in Japan by confederation.
By the way, the Yangban family of Korea, which became the nobility, consisted of six marquises, seven counts, 22 viscount, and 45 barons.
Until then, the Korean peninsula had been ruled by the Qing Dynasty.
Because the Ming Dynasty founded Korea, when the Qing Dynasty destroyed the Ming Dynasty, they resisted and were thoroughly beaten by the Qing.
It's hard to get a sense of the severity of the situation unless you hear from someone who remembers the time when they were a Qing vassal state.
I once happened to have only one former North Korean deserter living in my house for about a year.
He was an educated man who graduated from the old Pyongyang Middle School. He told me that the reason why Korea was so dirty at the end of the Qing Dynasty was that if you kept it clean, Qing soldiers would come to you, so you made it so nasty that even they couldn't get to it.
They would take it all with good food whenever there was good food, so they didn't develop a cuisine, and the only thing they would eat was scorched rice.
They couldn't even go out to sea because they were afraid of the Wokou, so they didn't develop a cuisine for sea fish.
That's why the Korean people were cooperative with the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars.
Also, about annexation, as mentioned in Britannica, there were opponents and terrorists, but most of the people were very happy.
To see how annexation helped the Korean people read the biography of Park Chung-hee, who served five terms as president of Korea from 1963 to 1979.
Park Chung-hee was the seventh child born into an impoverished family.
Before the confederation of Japan and Korea, impoverished Korea was like today's North Korea, where many people died of starvation in poverty.
Therefore, they couldn't have a seventh child.
Not only was he able to survive because of the Japan-Korea confederation, but he was also able to go to school because of the Japanese educational policy.
Since he had excellent grades in elementary school, He went to a teacher's school where tuition was exempted from a Japanese teacher's recommendation. Then he went to the military academy in Manchuria Xinjing, where he graduated at the top of his class, he was specially selected to enter the Japanese military academy.
If it had not joined Japan, it would have been unthinkable for him to have followed an unconventional course. As a result, he was able to bring economic growth to his homeland, which is called the "Miracle of the Han River" as the president of Korea.
It is a remarkable example of the benefits that Korea received from Japan-Korea confederation.
There were countless examples of this kind.
To be continued
