Talk:Korea under Japanese rule

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efrobe8700 (article contribs).

Article is Focused on Atrocities, Neglects Beneficial Development

There's no doubt that negative events and atrocities occurred during colonial rule. Nearly every colony during the age of colonialism suffered. Many indigenous people did not survive colonialism and became (near)-extinct such as in North / South America, Australia. This article is too focused on that, while omitting or downplaying positive development that occurred during that era. The chapter called "Legacy" focusses almost exclusively on negative events. So it would be more fair to (while keeping objective existing content) also include or expand with information about (please see the Japanese Wiki page for more information ja:日本統治時代の朝鮮:

• Improvement of education system and improvement of literacy rate
• Currency, banks
• Korean suffrage
• Traffic development, infrastructure (railroad, automobile, bicycle, ferry, aviation)
• Development of resorts (hot springs, climbing, ski, parks, pools, waterfalls, beaches)
• Culture (expositions: Joseon Industrial Exhibition of 1915, local specialty (food), fashion / makeup changes during colonial rule, Theater, dance, music, art, sports, movies, broadcast, beverages)
• City development: important historical buildings during this era.
• Industrialization projects
• Projects for modernization

This is feedback to help make the article balanced and hopefully others who are more knowledgeable about the subject can improve it. - Artanisen (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an argument I've seen before in other media, and it's very much in line with uyoku dantai talking points, which like to either gloss over or completely ignore factual reality or the overwhelmingly negative character of Japanese occupation (it should be noted that nearly all of the developments noted in your points were developed to benefit Japanese colonial rule and imperial military-industrial development at the expense of Korea; few, if any, were instituted for the benefit of Korea or Koreans). Importantly, the line that "nearly every colony suffered...many indigenous people did not survive" neglects the fact that many such peoples did not have a history of centralized statehood or organized civilization comparable to that of Korea. However, the truly fatal flaw in this argument is that it fails to account for the fact that within 5 years of Japanese withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula, Korea was embroiled in the 3-year Korean War, which resulted in a near-total destruction of infrastructure, non-residential buildings, industry, and so on - much of which was from Japanese occupation-era development - which had to be replaced from the ground up. Thus most Japanese imperial-era contributions to Korean development were effectively wiped out during the Korean War and replaced with Korean equivalents, mostly underwritten by the United States. If any tangible Japanese contribution should be considered with regards to Korean development in the modern era, it should be the substantial (something like 800 million USD at the time, corresponding to roughly 7.6 billion USD today) financial contribution from Japan given as part of the 1965 normalization treaty with South Korea (which of course did not benefit North Korea). In addition, post-WWII Japan's development also benefited South Korea by providing an example for design and development and being a source of industrial know-how in many circumstances (e.g. certain aspects of automobile manufacture). But note that these things come from post-WWII Japan, not Imperial Japan.Ecthelion83 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The article you've linked contains only one reference, which is to another JP Wikipedia article. I guess I'll look in the stuff in the Further Reading to see if it's got anything to try and balance it out, but I wouldn't be surprised if I end up having a hard time finding any authors who have anything positive to say about the Japanese Empire. Loafiewa (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Japanese wiki page has lots of references which are useful. You could also check wiki pages in other languages about this subject. So your statement that "a hard time finding any authors who have anything positive to say" is false and a biased attitude. - Artanisen (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the context meant was positive as far as the Japanese Empire's occupation of Korea; some of the points you have made assume Korea would not have accomplished these things without Japanese help/prodding, which is sheer speculation. It will be difficult to find objective historians who will be able to come forward with much in the way of positive accomplishments when balanced with so much absolute misery perpetrated upon the Korean people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"I kidnapped your child and did horrific things to them, but I also bought them a car so that makes it more acceptable"

I agree that any information about development during the colonial period should be included, but not because of some false sense of balance, but because we should include true and notable things. Actively seeking out "balance" when horrific things happened signals ulterior non-neutral POV motives.

Also you writing this is bewildering: Nearly every colony during the age of colonialism suffered. Many indigenous people did not survive colonialism and became (near)-extinct such as in North / South America, Australia. This is the lowest tier of whataboutism. You're saying Korea is supposed to be grateful it wasn't wiped out? These types of arguments signal explicit non-neutral POV. You're actively trying to paint this situation brighter by trying to justify the horrific things that happened. Completely unacceptable. toobigtokale (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

1905 or 1910 for start date?

A few weeks ago, @Magyar Andreasz set the start date of the period to 1905. I'm unsure of this, so wanted to double check.

For the infobox, the params are:

| status                 = Part of the Empire of Japan
| year_start             = 1905

In the lead, it states Korea was a protectorate in 1905. From that article: It is a dependent territory that enjoys autonomy over most of its internal affairs, while still recognizing the suzerainty of a more powerful sovereign state without being a possession. This suggests to me that we shouldn't use 1905 as the start date. However, it may be that language is being imprecisely used; I don't really know the details of the 1905 treaty, maybe it was really part of the Empire. toobigtokale (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

if no reply in a week, I may revert back to 1910 fyi toobigtokale (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Your revert was the correct move. Yue🌙 08:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Article grade and improvements

Downgraded article to C; it's still not the best. Still lots of poor and unsourced writing that needs to be pruned, and missing lots of info. Doesn't communicate what living in this period was actually like. Going to be significantly rewriting it over the following months. toobigtokale (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

And the lead (I wrote) is too long :) Need to cut it down eventually toobigtokale (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of this article in birthplaces

Whenever someone's Wikipedia article mentions they were born in Korea during this period, I've come to favor the practice of linking the phrase Korea, Empire of Japan to this article. I think this wording is a decent compromise.

Alternatives include:

• "Korea" (non-specific and potentially misleading link)
• "Japanese Korea" (I think confusing to unfamiliar people and doesn't specify "Empire of Japan")
• "Korea under Japanese rule" (I think verbose and lacks specificity of "Empire of Japan")
• "Chōsen" (opaque to people unfamiliar with Japan or Korea)

toobigtokale (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)