The Dangers of Politically Correct History

It's unfortunate that something so obviously a valid argument (English and Korean) – that there were Koreans who collaborated, especially in the recruiting of the so-called "comfort women" – are still beyond the bounds of scholarly debate.

Given the fact that there is a good bit of evidence to show that there were Koreans who collaborated in this horrible, ongoing act, making the assertion is a reasonable thing for a scholar to do.

What makes me suspicious about any "correct" vs. "distorted" history is the political context in which certain issues are raised, and the fact that there is a "right" answer before the question is even fully articulated. The Korean government and media seem to want to construct a history of black-and-white absolutes, in which Korea was a hapless victim; and even beyond the issue of the colonial period itself, if we're assigning national "blame" and talking about collective guilt, then isn't the Korean government, by having fostered, protected, and developed a sex industry (based in no small part on Japanese roots) around the US military for the gathering if capital for the nation – if we're talking about guilt on national and government levels, how is the Korean government also not morally culpable for having perpetrated a continuation of nearly the same kind of oppressive system of sexual labor?

Put another way, from the perspective of the so-called "comfort women," was being forced into sexual slavery for Japanese soldiers much different from returning to Korea and having no other social option than to do the same for American soldiers, especially at the behest of the Korean government?

On a related note, it is also scary to me is how convicted Korean war criminals can be absolved of responsibility after having been convicted of war crimes from eyewitnesses who identified them as having been infamous to their cruelty in the prison camps where they had served as guards over captured American servicemen. There's even a site demanding that compensation be given to the Korean war criminals, with no additional evidence other than they were Korean, and couldn't have really been morally culpable.

The rationale, in a nutshell? They were Korean, and just doing what they had been told. Well, the Americans tortured under certain of these individuals apparently couldn't make that distinction as their guards went above and beyond the call of duty to psychologically and physically torture them.

Huh? Even the Jews had the kapos in the death camps. But Koreans are somehow, by virtue of being Korean in the colonial period, with no additional evidence presented, impervious to guilt, because a court in 2006 assumes so?

So basically, being Korean during the colonial period absolved individuals of any responsibilities for their actions, and by retroactive extension, the then non-existent Korean nation under colonial rule.

And then for the Korean government to sell away future moral culpability for past wrongs – without informing the victims nor ever having compensated them since (which declassified documents talked about here and here and here and here and here revealed to be true in 2005) – isn't that enormously problematic?

And then there's also the fact that the government actively suppressed any talk of this stuff for decades, since it seriously contradicted with the state's interests in keeping this quiet?

How is that not sharing in a great deal of moral culpability for the lifelong pain and plight of the "comfort women" who lived on for far, far longer than 1945? Does anyone really think their suffering was due solely to the Japanese before 1945, or that that suffering ended immediately upon liberation and thereafter?

In other words, when did I step into an alternate universe in which Korean society has valued women's bodies at all throughout most of Korean modern history?

Was that when the Korean government was sending representatives to encourage prostitutes in the "camp towns" around the US military bases to gather capital for the nation? Or perhaps that was when the Park government was exploiting feminized labor throughout the 1960's and 70's? Is that why there are estimated from 300,000 to a staggering one million prostitutes working in the Korean sex industry in South Korea today (4.1% of the GDP by the government's own 2002 estimates)?

Why is this news, from a hardcore feminist perspective, at all surprising? There were Koreans who colluded in the kidnapping of the comfort women. Wow – not surprising, since most of the Koreans involved in the ongoing sex industry employing Korean women, as well as the importation of Filipino and Russian women under the same conditions that Korean women were kidnapped in the colonial period, as well as in the recent upsurge in the human trafficking of Korean women now all over the world since the 2004 Anti-Prostiition Law crackdown...

Seriously – are people around the nation holding their hands over their mouths and fainting in disbelief? In a country in which there are "masturbation rooms" and brothels next to elementary schools?

Come on.

And all the accounts you see present serious problems for the serious historian (as opposed to the kneejerk nationalist kind). As I tell my students of history all the time, refrain from using the passive tense as much as possible. This is not just for stylistic reasons, but also because it's an easy way to elide concrete historical references and credible evidence, which is what good history is based upon.

Most accounts read "were abducted" and "were taken" or "were misled into thinking they were applying for domestic labor" – something like this. If we have the facts evenly laid out and they are apparently distributed such that they offer a similar level of credible density across the entire argument, then why don't the histories tend to read, "After having been kidnapped by a roving band of Japanese soldiers searching for young candidates to be recruited into the ranks of the so-called "comfort women," Yumi found herself placed on a train and bound for..."

Too many of the accounts tend to skip right over recruitment and procurement and emphasize only the horrors of being a sexual slave itself. I'm not pooh-poohing that description, but merely pointing out that I know; I get it. I fully acknowledge the horror of that experience as well as the Japanese military and government's well-documented and historically compelling participation in the entire process.

But the question no one on this side of the East-Sea-of-Japan/Tokdo-Takeshima divide wants to look squarely in the face is the extent to which the overall low value of women's bodies in both societies at the time (which is still partially reflected now) contributed to not only the easy operation, but the relatively easy procurement of soon-to-be "comfort women."

Given the fact that the Japanese state and Korean/Japanese-run industry were in collusion at the time (which brings up the thorny issue of Korean collaboration), and that industry and organized crime were also closely linked (and were well into the development period as well), and that we know that many of the Korean women were brought into the industry by paid domestic recruiters, why is it akin to career suicide to pose the same question of collaboration, especially since the same historical actors – the state, industry, and organized thugs, for example – were on the scene.

Because that's a messy question.

But we forget that historical narratives are constructed around political purposed. The "Holocaust" didn't gain that moniker until the mid-1960's. It didn't become the historical lesson for the world that it is until a significant amount of time after the fact.

This doesn't change what happened. It changed how it is represented. "The Holocaust" happened like a motherfucker, but it took some time for the West to make sense of it, for the considerable political power of both Israel and those who support her to makes its presence felt (and not as a worldwide conspiracy, but as a political force like any other that exist in the world of politics, especially one enabled by a mixture of nationalism and a recent historical "quickening"), as well as for the rest of the world to begin to mold a coherent historical narrative out of such an overwhelmingly horrible act.

The situation with South Korean politics and constructions of "correct" versus "distorted" history makes for any true, deeper exploration into the painful, complex, and stomach-turning morass of the Japanese colonial period nearly impossible, quite ironically, in South Korea.

Think this isn't true? Look at the reactions to professors who even hint that Korea might have benefitted materially from the colonial period – they are summarily fired and their names turned into mud. And to the crazies who don't tend to read very closely before hitting the comment area, I'm not concerned with whether Korea benefitted or not at the present moment; I am only concerned with the fact that, given such a complex period with so complex and dependent factors, this isn't even considered a legitimate historical question.

"Did the Holocaust happen at all" is not something I consider a legitimate question, given the staggering, mind-boggling amount of evidence that anyone who has taken even a passing interest in the subject is faced with. Holocaust denial is political extremism because it is so very historically untenable a line of reasonable inquiry. You would have an easier time convincing me that Neil Armstrong never went to the moon (and yes, I've seen all the conspiracy theory videos and been to the web sites). And it is even more suspicious because it is usually only political extremists who are ever behind it.

However, "To what extent did Korea materially benefit from colonial occupation" is a legitimate historical question. "To what extent was there Jewish collaboration in the camps?" is also a legitimate historical question. And outside of a very narrow zone of unreasonable, undocumentable, and untenable extremes, most historical questions are at least worth asking, even if they may not be fun to hear answered.

And what is frightening about the Red Guard, knee-jerk reactions to Koreans in difficult moments in history, the logic behind people wanting certain professors' heads for even broaching certain historical topics seems to essentially stem from the idea that "they were Korean; that couldn't have happened."

It such professors were met with overwhelming, damning evidence of just how daft and dumb their arguments were, I wouldn't have a problem with this; but most of the reaction, as in the past with similar incidents, is simply knee-jerk nationalism guiding historical and popular discourse, even in the face of someone who might have something worthy of hearing. I'm not saying she's right about her historical assertion; I'm just saying that anyone covering their ears while calling for her head on a silver platter is most unequivocally wrong.

And given all the other sacred cows of Korean national ideology that poses as history from the colonial period, I think I'd like to hear what she has to say. And I'd like to hear more about who did the recruiting, how it was done, and what role the Korean government played in covering up this entire period after the war.

Comments

[pm]

Whew, don your armor, Michael.

Collaborators fall under a range from deliberate to unwilling to unwitting, and they are a fact of history in any nation that has been colonized or conquered.

It's been my observation as well that colonized nations, once liberated, are not always averse to turning a blind eye to the pasts of powerful former collaborators if they see a need for these people's wherewithal.

It seems to me that most countries are reluctant to confront these dynamics until a generation or so has passed. I think it's because admitting that these things happen and studying them brings these issues home to the level of individuals who commit acts and who make decisions. That's probably too hard to do when people who committed these acts and those who suffered from them (not mutually exclusive) are still alive and have to live in the same society. A myth of absolute victimhood helps individuals plaster over the rifts (of all sizes and depths) that fracture a society that has been colonized.

Not a defense of unspoken culture-wide gag orders, of course. It sounds like Korea might be going through the first stages of confronting its colonial past with a more critical approach, therefore the extreme response to the people who are leading this area of inquiry? Of course, that's if this is indeed a new line of public discourse--it's the first I'm hearing about it, but that doesn't say much.

I use "critical" in the sense of "characterized by careful evaluation and judgment", not as in "calling attention to errors and flaws". "Critical" is not a bad word. You know this, of course, but I'm just making it clear for any potentially angry commentors who show up to bash you as a "Korea-basher".

[BACKGROUND OF 'COMFORT WOMEN' ISSUE]

Comfort Women for US Soldiers in Vietnam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c7WF9twOaI&NR=1

BACKGROUND OF 'COMFORT WOMEN' ISSUE / No hard evidence of coercion in recruitment of comfort women
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20070331dy02.htm

BACKGROUND OF 'COMFORT WOMEN' ISSUE / Comfort station originated in govt-regulated 'civilian prostitution'
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20070331dy01.htm

BACKGROUND OF 'COMFORT WOMEN' ISSUE / Kono's statement on 'comfort women' created misunderstanding
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20070402dy01.htm

Sex-Slaves Mystery
http://japan-now.info/society.php?itemid=95

[The Metropolitician]

Strength and honor, PM. Thanks for the thoughtful post. And you're right – it takes time, but the way I see it, somehow there has been enough time for the present generation to have come to a completely different way of thinking than their parents and grandparents' generation about the Korean War, which was a hugely destructive and divisive (still divided) issue for the peninsula.

Yet, about the Japanese colonial period, which is further removed in time and inter-generational connections, there has been little movement. From where I sit, this has to do with a well-cultivated cult of victimhood that has specific ideological uses. Now, saying that Korea has fetishized being a victim isn't saying that Korea wasn't indeed victimized, but the danger is that victim status has become Korea's prime historical identity, even when this fact is demonstrably not "true" in the sense that Korea has necessarily had it worse than other countries historically.

Koreans tell me all the time how there has been constant attack from other nations, especially Japan. They point out that there was Japan's (there was not a nation or identity called Japan at the time) Imjin invasion, but then I point out that until the modern period, relations between what is now Korea and Japan was marked primarily by a pretty peaceful trade relationship, from the 1600's all the way to nearly the 20th century.

One need simply look at the history of Europe as an example of a place that has had at least, if not more, constant warfare than the Asian peninsula, and if one looks at the period from the 1500's to the twentieth century alone, say in the cases of England, France, and Spain – Korea's situation, at least in terms of military conflict, isn't so special at all.

A knowledge of basic history bears this out. Even in the modern period, other countries that have experienced colonialism and exploitation exist, and even cases of outright genocide. One doesn't really have to get into the histories of half of Africa and/or Latin America to choose an example. And if one were to look at the case of Rwanda or Sierra Leone, countries that are still feeling the effects of former colonial rule in vastly different ways, Korea's situation looks hardly unique in terms of the horrors of colonialism. Frankly, the attitude that Korea's experience is unique in the world, and specifically that it is the worst, strikes me as the result of a carefully cultivated ignorance and ethnocentrism.

If you teach history as a foreigner here, which is not something that foreigners often get to do, this fact is a stark one. My kids – and this says a lot about what they're learning many of them think the Holocaust pales in significance to the Korean experience. I ask them why, and they say that it's because Japan colonized and exploited Korea, and some even say that they "killed many Koreans." When I push them on that, especially in the context of them saying that it's "worse", I remind them that 12 million people (6 million Jews and 6 non-Jewish) perished in the Holocaust in the matter of less than 5 years, and then get into the signifcance of that not in terms of just body count, but as a symbol of the failure of Enlightenment and modernity for the West, which is why the history has such meaning for the West, and now the world.

What I try to tell them that it's more than just the West's "failure to recognize" Asian history (which is part of it, to be sure), but that the history does have particlar and relevant meaning for mankind on a scale and character a bit different from the Japanese having colonized Korea.

I won't even get into some of the kids who try to tell me the Holocaust was just brought about by Jewish influence over the media in general and Schindler's List specifically, as if no one had been thinking about this before that film came out. But Spielberg is often, often, often talked about in terms of his Jewish identity in Korea, and many Koreans see his film as a partisan effort for "his" people, which a lot of people, in the very same breath, see as legitimate, which may seem contradictory. But many people don't see the importance of the Holocaust as anything other than the Jewish influence on the world, which is most certainly not the only reason that historical narrative has developed in the West.

I look at history as interesting because it tells us something about the human condition. And if someone says, "there were many Koreans who collaborated in the recruiting of the 'comfort women'", and given the fact that I have myself read in the literature of amples cases of Korean thugs who recruited and kidnapped for money (not at gunpoint) as part of an organized industry that did not at the time 1) see itself in terms of the national identity with which modern Korea sees itself, nor did it possess the moral condemnation of a nation that had been liberated, and 2) women's valued were not highly valued and extremely exploited by either nation/culture at the time, anyway – why is it such a stretch to think there was some Korean collaboration?

As I said in the post, if even in the camps, there were Jewish kapos abusing their fellow Jews even as they were being put into "showers" and ovens, there could have surely been Korean collaborators as well. And what's funny is that the presence of purposeful and structured collaboration are acknolowledged in other aspects of the colonial period, but suddenly, there were none at all when it came to the recruiting of "comfort women."

Right.

I think this has to do with the way the issue has been politicized, more than real attention or concern being given to exploring this history deeply.

Thanks for the comment and a chance to continue the rant.

[The William G]

I don't think the problem is "politically correct" so much as "politically useful".

[Hater Depot]

Regarding Michael's comment about the Korean take on Schindler's List -- there is obviously a lot of projection that goes on when Koreans look at foreigners. Then Koreans produce content about their historical grievances they more often than not ARE partisan efforts for their people, so they assume that films like Schindler's List are also. Assumption might not even be accurate because for many people in this kind of case, a partisan effort is the only kind of effort there is.

Koreans thinking Japanese people care as much about Dokdo as they do is another case of projection. Accusing foreigners of being sexually immoral is a good one, considering the obviousness of prostitution here.

[Beechtree]

"but most of the reaction, as in the past with similar incidents, is simply knee-jerk nationalism guiding historical and popular discourse, even in the face of someone who might have something worthy of hearing. I'm not saying she's right about her historical assertion; I'm just saying that anyone covering their ears while calling for her head on a silver platter is most unequivocally wrong."

Quite true. The "comfort women" issue deserves to be explored in a much more diverse and complex way. But then if you believe your own words, you should also live up to them. I say this because you threatened to ban me for commenting on the I-pod story you posted.

I'm finding hypocrasy everywhere these days. Take for example the US Congress resolution demanding Japan apologize for its role in the sexual enslavement of "comfort women". Its utterly hypocritical since the US government has committed the same vile deeds in Viet Nam, setting up "comfort stations", enslaving Vietnamese women to service US troops (as documented in Susan Brownmiller's book Against Our Will (1975).

Let us not be hypocrits. If you dislike my take on things, that's fine. But aren't you doing precisely what you speak vitriolic volumes against, when you threaten to ban me for my point of view? You even said i had an "agenda". Do you have an anti-Korean agenda? I don't think so. Then I urge you to apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others.

[The Metropolitician]

Oh, please, Beachtree.

It's about ettiquette.

Stretching each and every comment, on whatever subject, to rail against American empire and all those who represent it – in this case, the GI whose iPod took a bullet for him – is what's irritating. In a post that's not inherently political – a random piece of iPoddery and pro-Applery – you stretch the thing to him going home, killing his wife and children, and then taking his own life.

Huh?

If you check around the web, keeping at least within the imaginable realms of the relevant discussion is considered basic commenting ettiquette. And commenters who only show up to talk about a single thing with little regard to the topic at hand, or at least being reasonably responsive to suggestions to keep things on track, they're called thread hijackers, trolls, or just plain rude.

And the hyperbolic nature of your posts, the singular dedication to talking about whatever you want, despite the topic not really warranting it, is what leads me to warn you about trolling.

You have a habit of taking things way beyond where they need too. My blog is "Orwellian?" Me telling to stop troll-like behavior is like Big Brother? Oh, come on. It's my blog, and I'm administrating. You've been given a lot of latitude to disagree with me, as has anyone else who's accused me of "censorship" – funny thing is, all those people's comments seem to be up on the site.

People seem to forget that this isn't a newspaper, nor am I the government. This blog is open to debate because of the ailttude I ALLOW IT TO HAVE – that's just the nature of anyone's blog. There are some people out there who would likely delete anything they don't like, whereas I do not. So the fact that you even feel this is an open forum is a function of the fact that I have created that atmosphere – NOT because you have any inherent right to it. The 1st Amendment doesn't prevent me from being able to delete and block and do whatever I want. The fact that I don't is a choice *I* have defined.

And one of the things that I want to cut down on is people hijacking threads, sounding hostile, or just plain dogmatic. That's because I would like to hear from other people on this site. And those who act rude will be put down rudely. Those who play nice will at least be treated respectfully. Those who disrespect deserve none. What I've found on this blog is that being nice to a fault means getting stomped over, and engaging stupid people (I'm not necessarily talking to you here, Beachtree, bu explaining) reasonably is a waste of time and energy. It's like trying to move a futon mattress – ever try that? – it just absorbs your energy and exhausts you.

Anyway, Beachtree, I'm saying cut down on the hyperbole and stay on topic. That is all.

[seouldout]

Only thing that someone could quibble about is "...where they (Koreans) had served as guards over captured American servicemen."

Replacing American with Allied would include those fine ANZAC, British, Dutch, Indian, Chinese, Canadian and Filipino servicemen and servicewomen who were also brutalized.

There's also a strong case to be made against the charge that the Japanese destroyed Korean culture, language and names.

Ironic that the more the Koreans demand recognition of their beyond-all-belief suffering more evidence is dug up exposing the fabrication. Foot is tasty, I guess.

[SomeguyinKorea]

Colonialism would most certainly be impossible without its collaborators. Imperial Japan understood this and the fact that it's easier to cripple dissent when the enforcers appear to be impartial (which is why many Japanese prosecutors and police officers here were in fact Korean).

[Beechtree]

Fair enough. I cede your concerns are legitimate. But pigeon-holing me as a troller is what I resent because its simply untrue. Nor am I claiming any "inherent right" to post at your blog. I'm just saying that anyone who makes principled assertions should also abide by those assertions. And thus far having viewed many of the hostile comments you have 'allowed', I think your openess is commendable. At the same time, even broad-minded people are susceptible to thoughtless assumptions that result in censorship and a narrowing of the framework of acceptable debate.

"And the hyperbolic nature of your posts, the singular dedication to talking about whatever you want, despite the topic not really warranting it, is what leads me to warn you about trolling."

I exaggerated in one instance, concerning the I-pod, and have been on topic with all else. The fact is you just don't like what I say and you're trying to distort that into me being a "troller". As to "taking things way beyond where they need too", you seem to be imposing limits to the scope of what can be addressed and frankly I do find this Orwellian - but it may be that I have not articulated my view well enough or shown how it is relevent, and for that I'm certainly at fault for the misunderstanding.

With the I-pod post, you have decided beforehand that it is not inherently political. Yes, sure I'm an Apple junkie and I'm in front of my I-mac as I type, but the story had a political subtext which I saw and perhaps others missed. I expressed it with too much hyperbole, granted, but the fact that you seized on this to character-assassinate me as a troller with a fixation is what I find shameful. I've commented on Korean issues, education, the doumi-girls, your photos, and many other things besides US imperialism. So don't make me out to be a troll, thanks.

Its your site. I actually enjoy reading it - and perhaps I should have expressed that sooner - even while I disagree with some things. Practise what you preach and don't fling mud is all I'm saying.

[The Metropolitician]

Thanks, and OK. I get your point and agree to not single you out unfairly. And I appreciate the comments – I guess that one just irked me because the last thing I expected was the image of some dude doing all that...and I know it was an American soldier, but I was just thinking bullet, iPod, cool. Wasn't thinking too much about a "War in Iraq" or politics post.

Keep on commenting, and I thank you for it!